Living and struggling with concupiscence - an Orthodox concept?

[Theopesta]

Dear fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters:

I need to read more about the orthodox view to concupisence,


I hope to you all peaceful holy week end
many thanks

[Kosmas Damianides]

Epiqimia we are told comes from the root word qumoV.

In ancient times Homer believed that qumoV was the vital driving force of all animals and every human being. It is the impulse, disposition, human instinct and desire, mind or spirit, sensibility, that which drives the emotions.

Hence we have St Evthymios who's name means good disposition or mind.

Later on in classical Greece "Thymos" took on more negative conotations such as anger, rage agression, agitation but also spirit and mind.

Again in the OT the Hebrew use = anger.

NT epistles also uses it for anger. Revelations uses it to denote the anger of God.

EPIQIMIA is used in ancient times after Homer and it means primal instincts and desires in general (ie food drink sleep), but also sexual.

In general, Philosophers used it as to denote sensuality. the Stoic philosopher Zeno lists this with one of the passions. Epicurus divides the good and natural epithia from the empty illegitimate ones. The natural were necessary for survival and for natural happiness and freedom from pain. the kenai epiqimiai were the empty desires of the soul, ie war, killing, suicide.

Cicero of Rome defined EPIQIMIA as cupida, libido: opinio venturi boni.

Worldly epiqimia in OT LXX became an offence against God who commands and desires all our obedience and love from the whole heart.

In the NT

Epiqimia means both natural desires such as hunger (LK 15:16, 16:21) longing (Lk 22:15, 1Thes 2:17), also desire to die (Rev 9:6).

But Acts 20:33 this is translated as a covetous desire. in James 4:2 it denotes worldly desires which separate man from God. so NT uses mostly 'negative' use of epithimia, something Satanic, disobedient and worldly. In 1John 2:15-17 Desire is either (of the world) perishable or eternal (of and for God).

Not all desires are evil;

In Matthew 13:17, Luke 12:22, 1Peter 1:12 it denotes honourable desires for the divine mysteries and for all good.

In Christianity

Epiqimia, as a whole should not be defined as something evil otherwise we run the risk of arriving at a dualistic view on things. Epithimia is God given and as such it is in fact the sme as our human will or disposition vital for our survival.

Adam and Eve were created with desire in them but the serpent had corrupted this desire which instead of being projected upwards was now made to face downwards. Mankind's natural desire to be in God's comfort to offer Glory and honour to Him, to be protected by Him and to live in paradise, in a Holy Union with Him, was now (due to original sin) corrupted out of disobedience, and mankind from then on almost constantly faces downwards towards sinful desires, sinful hedonistic and self satisfying desires which sever/cut him from the communion of the Love of God.

The message of the Bible commands us to once again look upwards and to again be united with Him in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Our desires ought to be good selfless desires to please God. Not pseudo-pietistic desires which seek to satisfy our own pleasures but rather to suffer the "pleasure of sacrifice", to renounce ourselves pick up our cross and follow Christ.

"The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." (John 12:25).

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26-27)

God does not want us to love Him in a worldly way, He wants us to learn to love Him propperly in a selfless divine way. And only by destroying this false love, this selfish hedonisic love and desire inside us can we Love mankind and God's creation propperly.

[Kosmas Damianides]

ONLINE LATIN DICTIONARY
concupisco : to covet, aim at, desire eagerly.

cupido : passion, desire, wanting, yearning, longing.

libido : whim, caprice, violent desire, passionate longing.

In case you don't know LAtin I looked up these words for you.

The translation of Epithymia into Covetousness, you will notice was not originally denoted in any of the sources I displayed. Perhaps a better word to use would be cupido (lat.) and yearning (eng.). Perhaps this will help you.

In Christ


Kosmas

[Theopesta]

many thanks Brother Kosmas,

if you please can in what topic name can I find the philosopher analysis of EPIthIMIA as:
the Stoic philosopher Zeno
Cicero of Rome
Homer

you can take your time no need to instant reply to not disturb you, thanks.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear Theopista Dem,
The Stoic Philosopher Zeno of Cyprus (Citium) wrote "Peri Pathon" - (Concerning the Passions).

Cicero of Rome wrote the "Tuscanae Questiones".
And you will find the definition of Epithymia in iv 7, 14 and iii 11, 24.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Project Guttenburg may have these in txt or ebook format.

[Kosmas Damianides]

I don't know of any website that may deal with this Epithymia or Concupisence by Cicero and Zeno. I will try more and see though.

[Leandros]

Dear Sister theopesta and forum friends,

As you can see from the Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary (http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0000800.html#T0000876) the word “concupiscence” is explained as: “desire”, desire, Rom. 7:8 (R.V., "coveting"); Col. 3:5 (R.V., "desire"). The "lust of concupiscence" (1 Thess. 4:5; R.V., "passion of lust") denotes evil desire, indwelling sin.

Rom 7:8 “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead”. Concupiscence = desire originated from sinful envy (Greek text: amartia kateirgasato epiyumian) Col 3:5 “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry”. covetousness= evil desire (Greek text: epiyumia kaki) 1 Thess 4:5 “Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God”. Not in the lust of concupiscence = not in passion of lust (Greek version: mi en pathei epiyumias)

So, as you can see, concupiscence is the desire that originates from sinful passion. It is not just to desire something, but to feel the passion of lust for something. Concupiscence is the “lustful desire”.

In this context, there is no such thing as “holy concupiscence”.

In Wisdom of Solomon 6:20 and in Psalm 118:20 the words “epiyumia» and “epepoyhsen» have the meaning of (free of lust) “wish”. The proper English translation in these cases is the word “wish”. (Psalm 118:20): (“my soul has wished to want to perform your will in every occasion”. (Wisdom of Solomon 6:20): “Therefore, the wish to obtain wisdom (has the power) to promote upon kingship/royalty”.

The Greek word epithimia/epiyumia has many different meanings and can be translated in many ways such as: desire, lust, pleasure, will and wish.

The Greek word epiyimia (it is pronounced in Greek “epithimia”) is a compound word formed from the words: epi + yumos.

epi=over + yumos= affection (affect: to cause feeling of love, sorrow, anger etc.). So the word “epiyimia” means to show overwhelming affection towards something or someone.

This is also the meaning of the English words: desire, lust, pleasure, will and wish. What makes the “epiyimia” to become “lustful desire/concupiscence” is the same cause that transforms the affection to become excessive, which we will examine in a moment.

As I understand your question, you are asking for the “sexual desire” as it is expressed through concupiscence. This is a normal question, but it has to be asked in a greater scope: What is the process that transforms the affection towards something or someone into an excessive and overwhelming desire, which becomes so powerful that it undermines even logic and feeling?

This is a question that was answered by the Neptic Fathers of the Orthodox Church. They presented the genuine Orthodox anthropology, which has analyzed the problem of being slave to three kinds of desires: the“desire” of the mind, the “desire” of the heart, and the “desire” of the affect. In their analysis, the human being is trisected in these conflictual “desires” and in the process he/she can not become a substantially unified person.

This issue was also analyzed by the Greek philosophy that categorized the parts of inner human in three parts: logistikon -intellect, thymikon -thymic, epithymetikon –desiring. In his work “Phaedros”, Plato gives us a vivid picture of the nature of each part and how they interact. He says that the soul is like a chariot drawn by two winged horses and driven by one charioteer. The intellect, the most human part, is represented by the charioteer (heniochus), while the thymic and desiring parts are represented by the two winged horses, white (leukos hippos) and black (mauros hippos) accordingly. The white one (thymic part) is easy to control with no whip, only by the orders of the charioteer, whereas the black (desiring part) one is wild and can barely controlled by whip and stings. The opposition between these two “horses” is the cause of all of man’s internal strive.

In his work “Platonic Matters”, Plutarchus further clarifies the relationship between the parts of the soul saying that, thymic’s main characteristic is that it is made both to rule and be ruled, while the intellect part is made only to rule and the desiring part to be ruled. Thus, thymic’s connecting nature is revealed and the reason why is the key to the unification of the soul made clear. “Discipline and leadership are part of thymic’s nature since it obeys to reason (intellect part) while it rules over desire (desiring part) and enforces punishment when desire rebels to reason”. However, Plutarchus also notes that: “...the parts of the soul should not be in any way restrained by names and places. They should be examined in depth according to force and analogy.” An analysis for the ancient Greek anthropology can be found in a short essay in this Hellenistic site (http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/heliodromion/e-bperieythimias.htm).

The Church Fathers took this philosophical anthropology, which was well established in their age, and they presented it in a new way.

They accepted the three folded partition of human soul and they presented a new Orthodox view as they taught that the harmony and unification is not accomplished by the primacy of the intellect over the two other parts of being, the thymic and the desire, and that all three parts are actually disrelated and autonomus from each other as long as they are diffused into the external reality of being. The harmony of being can only be achieved in the unification of the three-parted soul in the relation of purification in Christ.

Let us examine the difference between the philosophical and the Orthodox anthropologies.

The philosophical anthropology, which until today is prevailing even in many non-Orthodox “christian” doctrines (like in the Vatican theology), states that a human being is presented by the power of his intellect/logic over his thymic and his desire.

Logic/intelect is the ability to make rational decisions based on well established experiences.

Thymic/affect is the experiential realization of reality based on subjective reality.

Desire is the ability to “consume” facts/realities of the world based on their incorporation in the life of the specific human being.

For example, the desire for pleasure makes a man to relate with a woman (desire). Then, the subjective realization of the specific relation results as an experience of affection, or repulsion towards the specific woman (thymic). Finally the logic evaluates the experience and makes the final decision on whether the specific person will continue the specific relation (intellect).

Well, from the examination of this process arise many problems! It is a hierarchical model with the intellect, on top, ruling the thymic in the middle, which rules the desire at the bottom, and the whole structure stands over reality of the world:

INTELLECT is ruled by nothing and it rules over thymic -- and through thymic it also rules over desire. THYMIC is ruled by the intellect and it rules over desire DESIRE is ruled by the thymic –and through thymic is ruled by intellect-- and it rules nothing REALITY of the world - which is not part of self – is consumed by the presence of humans
The problems occur when the underlying parts of self do not accept the ruling of the above!

In our example, if logic rules to stop the specific relation with the specific woman, but the thymic, or the desire suggests continuing, then the man is in trouble! Even if logic and thymic rule to stop the specific relation and desire denies stopping, then the man is in trouble, again. Only if all three of them agree on the specific issue, then the man can live a balanced and harmonic life – if you think all cases of disagreement, between the three parts of soul, then you will realize that it seems to be no other resolution for unified/harmonic life other than the symphony/conformity among them.

The philosophical resolution is to accept the natural hierarchical process and to pronounce logic as the master of being. Only then, the harmony can be accomplished.

Let us see now how each part comes to a decision:

For Intellect, the decision making process is the easiest. It just combines the experiential facts that are providing by the thymic, as personal subjective realization of reality, in the natural process of intellect and the result comes out almost with now labour. It is like arithmetic, nobody can argue with the results and nobody can defeat it. In this context, Intellect is the most unbeatable part of the soul.

For Thymic, things are a little more complicated, because it has to evaluate reality according to natural senses and to discriminate illusions and pretence from the truth, as the human being experiences the realities of the world. For instance, the earth seems to be flat, but this experience is an illusion and the truth is that the earth is spherical. The results are gathered and are categorised and are filed in order to be evaluated by logic. In most cases the intellect can lead the thymic with ease, but there are cases that the thymic befool logic. (This is the aim of advertisement of our age, as it tries to persuade the thymic part of the soul of consumers about the advertised product and then the intellect part follows the thymic decision as well. For instance, advertisement presents a happy family that pretends to use a product, which offers to them joy and happiness and our intellect is affected to resolve that the specific product is very useful without any solid evidence. This, of course, works the other way around too, a negative resolution of thymic can result in drawing similar decision from the intellect.)

For Desire, things are very simple. Desire is functioning based on discrimination of self and otherness. Any otherness can be an object for desire. Desire is just the willingness to “consume” otherness in order to enrich self and to become “bigger”. The “increment” can be natural, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, or any other type that provides the upgrade of the respective limited horizon of self.

The Greek philosophers estimated the most “rogue” part of soul to be the desire. It can only exist when it relates with otherness. Desire can only exist in being defined by the otherness existence. It can not “choose” what to desire. As long as otherness stands out from self it becomes desired and actually the more different from self is otherness the more desired it becomes. Desire is an attribute of soul as a “consumer”. If it does not consume then it does not exist. This is a major problem, because desire has no channel of exit since it faces otherness. If it bypasses otherness then this is an act of self destruction. Without otherness, neither desire can exist at all (the self is falling apart)! There can be no process to convince “desire” to stop being in desire for otherness, other than enforcement. This is perceived by the being as unjust “punishment”, because desire had no other way to function.

Having presented the deadlock of Desire, the Greek philosophers realized that neither the Thymic, nor the Logic have in their way of being a dead end – like the Desire has. They are both capable to deny the “input” from “below”. Logic can deny the thymic resolution and the thymic can deny the desire based respectively in logic and in subjective experience, because their justification is based exclusively on their own resolution. They can exist by themselves discarding the realities of the world –something that desire has no power to do- because they stand over a lower part of self that supports them existentially and need no justification other than to “make proper decisions on their own pleasure”.

Returning in our example, both the logic and the thymic are capable to deny a specific relation with a woman based on their particular reasoning but desire can not do the same thing, because, then, man would have become “no-man” if he was insensible in the presence of a woman. Man has to desire every woman that he faces, or else he either has no contact with reality, or he is not a man.

According to Greek philosophical anthropology there is nothing wrong for a man to desire every woman that he meets. This is assumed as a natural process of being “man”. But, nevertheless the Greek philosophers were confronted with the problem of splitting in multitude personalities following each and every desire that is presented in life. The solution was found in the “balance”. Although there were many philosophical “schools” with many substantial variations between their methodologies, actually they arrived at the same resolution in one way or another: that the human being must be ultimately headed by logic, because the world beyond self, the “Cosmos”, is a logical entity. Human life, as a realization of Cosmos, can be justified and glorified only by the subjection of “desire” and of “experience/thymic” to the human logic.

Because, from the one side, it was the desire and from the other it was the logic, the balance between the two was performed by the thymic. Both the desire, and the logic are inflexible. Because the desire has only one way to exist (to get input from the world) and the logic also has only one way to exist (to put output to the world), it was the middle process, the thymic, that was assumed to provide the necessary balance between the input and the output. In such case, the thymic was assumed that it was functioning “good” so it was called eu-thymie (eu=good + thumie).

“Euthumie is a Homeric word that means good temper, good heart and great courage. Democritus was the first one to write about euthumie and gave a more specific meaning to the word explaining it as the state of being in which the soul is freed from all desire and unified with all its parts. Democritus believed that euthumie should be the final goal of everything we do in life. He also used same synonymous to the word such as stability, peace, harmony, symmetry, calmness. These are all higher states of being for the soul that came from its atom’s harmonic movements and are accompanied by emotions of joy, deep satisfaction and trust.”

The last sentence looks like a (non-Orthodox) “christian” doctrine; nevertheless, it is an ancient Greek one.

The Orthodox Church Fathers denied this false philosophical anthropology and they introduced the Cruciform anthropology. Living in an age that they were asked and examined by followers of Greek philosophy – even in our days this examination is still going on from western (vatican/protestand) philoshopy– the Orthodox Church Fathers were forced to use the philosophic language when they conversed with the World, but they never used this language within the Church.

In order to find a common language with the Greek anthropology, they follow the partition of being in the three energies of the intellect, thymic, desire. This distinction is according to the word of God : (Matthew 22:37) “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”. But, starting from there, they presented a whole new anthropology.

Let us see now, the Orthodox anthropology, as it is presented by the Church Fathers, and particularly by St Gregory Palama.

According to Orthodox anthropology, the three energies of human soul, intellect, thymic, desire, are ill. The illness starts from the desire, climbs up to thymic and arrives at intellect, where it stays permanently as an addiction. Of course, the reasons for this illness are not the desires that were produced from the World that God has prepared for man. This is also why desires were congenital with humans in a gentle way. But, the greed that was germinated afterwards, not from nature but from the human will, seems to be the reason for every evil. Apostle St Paul names greed as the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Greed transposes the relation of worshiping God, towards the creations of God; therefore it is also named heathenism. (Romans 1:25) “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen”..

The passions that are born from the materialistic love have no capability for benevolence. The inability to obtain material goods makes the thymic to rebel realizing anger and rage, making the man like a beast and the concentration of material goods makes the man foolish, because they can not safeguard life. Material goods just intensify human desire to make a fortune, pretending being in “poverty” all the time, and they bury human mind in “golden” grave, before his natural death. They change human’s view and they render human as self-loving, instead of God-loving and human-loving. (Romans 1:21-22) “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”.

Even in the first human couple, it was desire that opened the door of human hypostasis to passions.

Then, ambition appears as the second result of the evil desire, after the materialistic love. There are two categories of ambition: the secular ambition (the decoration of “external” appearance) and the ambition of religion (this is the pride and hypocrisy of those that have spiritual wealth).

There is also a third result of the “wrong desire”, which is bulimia from which originates the carnal impurity.

In this context the side effects of ill desire act on thymic and in succession they affect on intellect. The process of therapy must be unified because the human being is uniformed and to every one of its three parts of soul must be applied treatment, starting from desire.

The practice of various passions and their self-expression is based on the illness of the three folded soul. Therefore, after the incarnation of Christ and the healing of the overall man, the human being is capable to hold in balance the three energies of the soul by offering abstinence to desire, love to thymic and the constant turn towards God to intellect. In this realization, the Church Fathers have shown that the presence of passions, either in the soul as a whole, or in parts of its energies, is the result from a meeting with a stranger that comes to disaffect and to dominate and has nothing to do with the creativity of God.

According to Church fathers, the passions are in concatenation among themselves, although they are being varied and multiform. They depend and they are linked with each other and they transfer their vigorousness by producing other passions. For example, the passion of vanity produces envy and sometimes it generates assassination. Selfish generates conceit, pride and hypocrisy and even sensualism.

The Fathers of Church categorised the passions according to their origin. So, there are the passions that originate from the bodily sense organs that produce acquisitiveness and greed. Human senses are also prompted from an internal sense, which is the fantasy and they produce other passions like arrogance and self-esteem. There are also mixed passions that originate both from the fantasy and from the senses like the vainglory and pride.

From all senses Church Fathers insisted on the sense of “taste”. The desire to “taste” is not limited to the proper satisfaction for needed food, but it expands to bulimia or to heavy drinking. From bulimia emerges every carnal passion, like harlotry, adultery, unchastity, lewdness and every carnal impurity. These passions subjugate the senses of hearing, smell, and vision and then they render as lovesome many despiteful actions like the obscenely talking, the unchaste songs, the demonic dances, the anointments that support filthy behaviour and the decoration of luxurious clothes. In this process the intellect looses its wisdom that is gifted by the Holy Spirit and it is overwhelmed by mental deterioration. The intellect declines from God and becomes either demonic, or bestial. St Gregory Palama says: “Therefore, the mind that draws away from God becomes either bestial, or demonic. It releases himself to carnal desires and knows no limit in the quest of pleasure”.

The passions of fantasy are propelled by the devil. In most of the times, they are not prompted by external stimulus, but they are produced by direct effect of devil, without consciousness of his presence.

In another category Church Fathers point out that there are minor passions that have the power to produce other passions more severe. For instance, babble, scurrility and wordplay are obstacles for spiritual growth and they may become “fuel” and “promptitude” for harlotry.

Well, if the human life is addicted to distorted desire that is realized by the thymic as prosperous experience which is accepted by the intellect as logical, then how man is supposed to be cured from this illness?

The philosophical doctrine of hierarchical discipline under the leadership of intellect can not provide the solution, because all three energies of human soul are equally affected and they are mutually susceptive to influence from each other.

Church Fathers suggest that the cure can only be found in “repentance”.

In the patristic tradition, the repentance is projected as the absolute requirement for the healing of the soul, as a constant weapon against its illness until the time of death. “The man that repents with all of his soul through good will and abstention from sin arrives before God. But, he is still far from the final salvation because he is still under “bad habit and superstition”. Therefore, it is needed lifetime repentance.

Repentance and spiritual mourning constitute the path of healing. The mourning (before God), is the womb that gestates the life of repentance. The mourning has two conditions: grief and delight. A Christian has to pass through them in order to experience the true Life. The grief is generated by the experiential knowledge that “we are blameworthy for much” and from the recognition of our “horrible disguise”, which we see during the reconnaissance of our internal self. This grief becomes noticeable during the time of prayer, in which we ask for the mercy of God. The delight is felt afterwards, as we experience the energy of the love for God which recreates the fallen soul and brings the fruitfulness tears of repentance.

Repentance and mourning has the effect of cleansing from passions, but the impassibility is the effect of accepting the Grace of God. The contribution of man is necessary, though. The will of man is enforced profusely by the Grace of God.

When a soul is trying to be released from preoccupancy, it starts gradually to experience the purification. There are three stages of purification: novice, intermediate and perfect. In the first two, the determination of man is more obvious than the presence of God, which is indirect. In the third, the presence of God is visible. “For the novice, the obtainment of humbleness is the verification that he is on the right way. For the intermediate, the confirmation is the lack of temptation from within. And for the perfect, the substantiation of purification is the donation of surplus of sight of Divine Light”.

The Orthodox “impassibility” is not known in the non-orthodox world. The non-Orthodox world knows the impassibility according to etymology: impassibility = lack of passion. Non-Orthodox impassibility is the mortification (the killing) of the experiential part of soul. It is the natural castration of soul as it is prohibited to perform its natural energies. St Gregory Palama, rebutting this non-Orthodox notion of impassibility, gives the Orthodox realization of impassibility: “the philosopher have heard of impassibility and he imagined that the word is about the disability of desire, because he has not heard that the disability of desire is inclination to evil and that it is rejected by the Fathers”. Then St Gregory gives the definition of Orthodox impassibility in this unrivalled verse: “It is better for you to learn, philosopher, that we are not being taught impassibility in your way, as the killing of desire, but as the drift from the worse to the best and as the transformation of movement towards the divine to the addiction to divine, in total repulsion of desire against the wicked and in absolute attraction towards the Good. This is who we define as impassible: the man that has turn away from the evil addictions and has become wealthy from the blessed addictions”.

Therefore, impassibility is not the destruction of passions, or the abortion of certain substantial realities of the world, but it is the revulsion and the retrofit of the energies of the soul and of the senses of the human body.

Impassibility is named as “blessed passion”. St Gregory says: “There are passions that are blessed and they are common energies of the soul and of the body, which do not fix the spirit on the flesh, but they are raising the flesh up according to the value of the spirit and they persuade the flesh to look up above. What are these passions? The spiritual passions, which do not arrive to the mind through the body, but originated from the mind traverse through the body and from their actualization and experience they transform it into superior status and they deify it. The real knowledgeable of God, is the man who experiences the divine life and in any case has desires that are praiseworthy and divine”.

The schema of the anthropology of the Church Fathers is the reverse of that of the philosophers:

REALITY of the world - which is not part of self – is produced by the presence of humans DESIRE is affected only by the ontological otherness - the purified senses are insensitive to non ontological (imaginery) “otherness” and they are sensitive only to ontological otherness THYMIC is related in love with the blessed objects of desire INTELLECT is constantly turned towards God
For Orthodox anthropology, the Cosmos/World is getting hypostasis through humans and not the other way around. "For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God".(Romans 8:19-27) Also:(Zephaniah 3) (%20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zephaniah%203%20;&version=31;%20)

May God bless us, all.

Leandros.

PS: I submit this link of St Palama's writings about "passions and impassibility" (http://www.pigizois.gr/pneumatikoi_logoi/pathoi_apathia.htm), for forum members that understand modern Greek.


(Message edited by lpap on 31 July, 2005)

[Theopesta]

many thanks in every precious word, I hope you all enjoy with blessed litergy

from: Excerpts From The Essay
The Theory of Knowlege of St. Isaac the Syrian
By Saint Justin Popovich (Institute For Byzantine And Modern Greek Studies, 1997), pp. 117-168
http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

{Man crucifies himself in prayer, crucifying the passions and sinful thoughts that cling to his soul. "Prayer is the slaying of the carnal thoughts of man's fleshly life."}

[Theopesta]

please I hope you all forgive me for my simple questions: in a search "Marriage & Orthodoxy" in this site:
http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/forfolks/osbmar.htm
it is very useful search but I am not object I just want to understand this part

Quotation:
{Adam and Eve come together in marital union in Paradise, before the Fall, revealing marriage as a part of God's eternal purpose for humanity in the midst of creation (Genesis 2:22-25). }

I feel the life in paradise Adam not immature child but his all parts of soul busy with God
he and Eve not discern the sex of the other because they are busy in every holy community with GOD.

many of blessed monk not feel with women and man because their mind and internal senses are busy.

st. Mary the egyptian when met st. Zosima surely they spend very holy chaste time, as Adam and Eve in paradise

when GOD say Gen 2:
24 (AKJV) "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall join to his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1- this about what will be in future as their is no mother and father to Adam and Eve to leave them

2- after falling God said to Eve: GEN 3: 16

"16 (AKJV) To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you."
this consequances releated to bodily relations

although god bless them gen 1: 28
28 (AKJV) "And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
this blessing not mean that the marrage in paradise was in the carnal level.
I think their relation with God make them live in a transcendent relation to give impression about the true marrage not begin in carnal level

[nurse-aid]

marrige, marrige!!! it is ONLY REAL ONE when HE HIMSELF BLESSED! not by rituals, but by HIS SPIRIT between TWO! then it is MARRIGE! yea like in Paradise! IF it is ONLY by blood or obidience, or childbearing or eals...then this marrige is simply civil one! YEA! that is what many are in http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/blush.gif but....http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/proud.gif

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Adam and Eve come together in marital union in Paradise, before the Fall, revealing marriage as a part of God's eternal purpose for humanity in the midst of creation.

I went to site this quote comes from but I am still not certain whether by "marital union" is meant physical union. If so this is not an Orthodox or Patristic understanding.

From St John of Damascus we read:


Virginity was practiced in paradise. Indeed, sacred Scruipture says that 'they were naked, to wit, Adam & Eve: and were not ashamed.' However once they had fallen, they knew they were naked and being ashamed they sewed together aprons for themselves. After the fall, when Adam heard 'Dust thou art, and unto dust return,' and death entered the world through transgression, then 'Adam knew his wife: who conceived and brought forth.' And so to keep the race from dwindling and being destroyed by death marriage was devised, so that by the begetting of children the race of man might be preserved.

But they may ask: 'What, then, does 'male & female' mean, and 'increase and multiply'? To which we shall reply that the 'increase & multiply' does not mean increasing by the marriage union exclusively, because, if they had kept the commandment unbroken forever, God could have increased the race by some other means.

Marriage indeed is blessed by the Church through the sacrament of marriage but its primary purpose is not the blessing of physical relations. Rather through the sacrament the couple are given the grace to live in union together and then through this physical relations can also become a means of union. This is important to understand for otherwise we think that it is sensuality itself which marriage blesses which is very destructive to the marriage relationship and indeed to each person within the marriage.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theopesta]

thanks our father, please can I know where I find this quotation from
St John of Damascus
in christ theopesta

[Theopesta]

in search named:
Marriage is for Really Good Friends
by Cmdr. Richard C. Butlerý

In Latin there are three words used for levels of love, concupiscentia, benevolentia, amicitia

Benevolentia St. Thomas Aquinas defined as "love that seeks the good of another person," a love that seeks to satisfy the needs of another person. Concupiscentia can come and go, but benevolentia, meeting the needs of another person, is a kind of love that is very profound.

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, when marriage is at its best, people can experience amicitia, the highest love of all. It goes beyond both the pursuit of pleasure and the pursuit of getting needs met. It is like the love God has for us.

Amicitia is the sort of love that doesn't worry too much about meeting the needs of one another, because it just assumes that it's going to happen. It enjoys the good times, but it doesn't worry about things when times are no good, because it knows it will get through. Amicitia is the sort of love that transcends ordinary circumstances. It is, we would say theologically, when the two become one

(I Corinthians 13:4-6).

Amicitia--love--bears all things and endures all things. It hopes all things. It is that love that transcends merely meeting the needs of one another. It transcends even just having a good time. How good it is when friendship within a marriage or even friendship anywhere in our lives can transcend concupiscentia and benebolentia and experience amicitia, that love that goes beyond all things

in christ theopesta

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Thepesta Dem,
This quote came from The Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chap. 24.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael,


But they may ask: 'What, then, does 'male & female' mean, and 'increase and multiply'? To which we shall reply that the 'increase & multiply' does not mean increasing by the marriage union exclusively, because, if they had kept the commandment unbroken forever, God could have increased the race by some other means.

I dont understand the above portion of the quote from St John Damascene, I wonder if you might be able to clarify it? In particular, the word "exclusively" confuses me. Does it mean that, although Adam and Eve did not generally engage in physical relations before the Fall, they nevertheless sometimes did? If it is only suggesting that there is a less literal way of understanding the phrase "increase and multiply", then what is the alternative meaning St John is referring to?

Also, why would God wish to increase the race "by some other means"? Does this mean that physical union in marriage is inevitably sinful, no matter how chaste the partners try to be in their loving desire towards one another?

Many thanks,

In Christ
Byron

P.S. Doesn't the idea that procreation is a result of death entering the world (which in turn is a result of sin) lead to deprecation of the body and its natural functions? I thought desires can be pro- or contra- nature, and in themselves are not evil, just what direction we give to them. Whatever happened to the good, in man's case "very good" creation? If Man was "very good", why would God not wish us to procreate naturally even before the Fall? Is sexuality then a result of the Fall?

Regarding "concupiscence", is there perhaps a difference between this term as used in the Latin church under the influence of St Augustine, and the equivalent terms as used by the Greek Fathers?

Sorry about the many questions, this is a topic I find very important.

[Theopesta]

brother Byron Jack Gaist
you will found many useful, pure, intelligent points on the same topic on brother kosmas 129 and brother leandros 189

also, about the use of epithumia in N.T you can find in thayer's greek english NT lexicon or kittel NT theological lexicon

I will write what I will find after search

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

Since it is the teaching of the Church that Adam & Eve did not engage in physical relations before the Fall then the word "exclusively" in St John of Damascus would mean that God would have provided another means to increase the human race. Of course it is difficult for us to understand what this alternative way could have been. But St John's main point, following the Patristic tradition, is that sexual expression as we know it did not exist before the Fall.

This I think is very important to understand. What we are talking about as being a result of the Fall is sexuality as we now know it- ie relationship not free of passion. Why this is so important to understand correctly is so that we do not make the mistake of thinking that it is physicality itself which is sinful.

God created Adam & Eve to relate to each other in love free of passion. In this sense before the Fall their relationship & love was in the image of that of the Holy Trinity. It was only at the Fall that sin came into this relationship- selfish sensuality in terms of the present discussion.

If God's providence had left the human relationship at this point- selfish sensuality- then we may have been able to say of the marriage relationship that it is "inevitably sinful, no matter how chaste the partners try to be in their loving desire towards one another." (from your question above). But because God's providence is precisely redemptive it is better to say that we are able to bring Christ's Life & grace into a situation where sin is indeed present.

This is indeed what the sacrament of marriage refers to not being merely an outward service in which we 'obtain God's grace'. But rather that in a situation in which there are elements of falleness we are engaged in an endeavour of bringing Christ's Life into a relationship so that it might be renewed. And the way we enter into this is through the sacrament of marriage.

What we are talking about here is a way of life which is engaged in renewing the situation in which we find ourselves in. We are talking about bringing Paradise to a situation in which the Fall is present.

In fact our Christian life is filled with many similar situations. For example Adam & Eve before the Fall did not relate to food with the passion of greed. Their relationship with creation was passionless. It was only after the Fall that food & creation was related to with passion. Thus eating has something sinful in it now- if done for its own sake. But if done in Christ- eg. the prayers before & after meals, fasting, etc- then eating is in the process of being redeemed and of assuming its assuming its God-given purpose.

I think that the analogy can also follow for the human relationship. In itself, apart from God it becomes destructively sinful focussing more and more on selfishness & sensuality. In this sense it really is an identical image of the Fall. But in the Church through Christ this relationship is being redeemed and assuming its essential focus which is a love in image of the inter-personal love of the Holy Trinity.

Now it would certainly not be realistic or sober to deny that present human relationships have elements of what is sinful & destructive. After all our Christian struggle that we bring to these relationships are based on an understanding of what we are struggling against. But on the other hand we are also struggling towards something- and without this understanding our struggle also would be futile.

So there we have it! Our whole life is a struggle against sin & death- but also for virtue & life.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theopesta]

JOHN OF DAMASCUS: AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, BOOK IV Chap. 24.

But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael and Theopesta dem,

Thank you both for your comments.

Fr Raphael, it is particularly helpful for me at this point that you identify the element of sin in the physical relationship as being not the bodily congress itself (if I've understood you correctly - please correct me if this is not quite right), but the selfish sensuality which sadly so often accompanies our marital relations. Would it be incorrect, too, to be so bold as to suggest that there may also exist an unselfish sensuality, a kind of paradoxically chaste eros between truly devoted spouses? Is this a proper goal for the married Christian to aspire to?

Your comments encourage me to continue in my belief that the body, as created by God, is good, and - yes - the natural impulses towards sex, food, fight & flight etc. which God "put in" there (in the form of chemical neurotransmitters) are therefore also, in themselves, good. Or are these in themselves a result of the Fall, Father? What you write does not seem to me to suggest that our Edenic ancestors were devoid of a relation - albeit a passionless one - to food; however, it does seem as though patristic consensus suggests they were devoid of a "sexual" impulse. Does this mean that hunger is a more truly "natural" (in the Christian sense) instinct than sex?

I seem to have returned to my original question: if Adam and Eve were not created by God to engage in physical relations with one another - not even unselfish and unselfconscious physical relations leading to painless childbirth - then is not all sex, all physicality by definition the corrupt outcome of the Fall? I believe in a previous communication you suggested some Fathers did maintain this. You actually write:


In this sense it [i.e. the physical relationship?] really is an identical image of the Fall.

Indeed, the immediate effect of having eaten the forbidden fruit was seeing each other's nakedness. But is it the nakedness or the body which was corrupted, or the gaze?

I'm not sure I'm making any sense, sorry about the confusion, which is probably a result of my perplexity over this issue. I guess what I'm saying in a nutshell is: "is sex between married people who love one another and believe in God good, or is there something inherently sinful about sex altogether?"

Thank you all for your patience.

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Maybe one way of explaining this is to point out that because we are created as physical beings we always have a physical relationship in regards to each other. As human beings of flesh & blood this is part of our nature. But on the other hand this physical relationship to each other need not be sexual.

Adam & Eve were created body, soul & spirit. Through all of these aspects of themselves they related to each other in godly fashion. Living a Divine life spirit guided soul & body. Although it is extremely difficult for us to know the details of what this relationship would have been we do know from the Holy Fathers that it was passionless & so the physical relationship was not expressed in a sexual fashion. After the Fall however the relationship between Adam & Eve radically altered in every fashion- through body, soul & spirit- so that now it was affected by passion. It was not that physicality itself was the result of the Fall but rather that how this was expressed was a result of the Fall. That is what was meant by writing in the previous post that,"In itself, apart from God it [ie not only the physical aspect but the whole human relationship] becomes destructively sinful focussing more and more on selfishness & sensuality. In this sense it really is an identical image of the Fall." In other words by sexuality & sensuality we are referring to how the human relationship fell from a passionless to a passionate relationship. In this sense it is not correct to refer to an 'unselfish sensuality.' (Just my opinion on this one but I also think we have to be very careful about 'chaste eros'. It's much safer to just say we should strive to love each other- and the Holy Fathers often do refer to a chaste love between a married couple as mysterious as this may seem.)

Now if everything was to be defined by the Fall it would be easy to just say that 'sexuality is evil.' But while the Fall distorted human nature it did not fundamentally transform it otherwise there would be no basis for achieving our salvation. This indeed is the paradox of our situation- in our nature we see wheat & tares mixed together. Not just in the sense that there are sinful and virtuous impulses but rather that the two threads of the Fall and desire for Paradise are often wrapped together in the same actions.

Thus it is with the example of hunger. Hunger was allowed by God in consequence of the Fall in order to support our unstable life. Within hunger also lurks the possible sin of greed. So hunger arises as a condition of the Fall- but even though it is not implicitly sinful it almost always has the potential to become greed so this is something that must always be struggled against.

Is it the same for the sexual impulse? The Holy Fathers (eg St Maximos the Confessor) do speak of hunger as being a natural desire arising to compensate for the effects of the Fall. But they do not mention sexuality in this same way even though there are some similarities. The reason for this I think is that while hunger could be said to be relatively free of passion this can hardly be claimed about sexuality. Indeed this is the most crucial point (actually the point that most argue about)- that sexuality is never free of passion even though it does correspond to the desire for relationship.

Perhaps this is why except for the sins at both ends of the spectrum- sensuality on the one hand & disdain on the other- the Church is very cautious about being too analytical about this subject & of trying to tease out the threads of good and bad too much. Too much self-analysis between a couple risks mistaking a good thread for a bad or vice versa.

So this is why the way of life the Church has provided us with is so good. The relationship between male & female is blessed within the grace of the Church. But this is not a blessing for sensuality. Encouraging us to grow ascetically in love towards each other all expressions of love- including the sexual- are progressively purified. So that without our hardly seeing it what is sinful and selfish in the relationship falls away to become something transfigured.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Byron,

It seems to me that the demon of lust most certainly did not have any place in Adam and Eve's relationship prior to the fall. We can't say that Adams fall created the demon or demons but rather there was no lust of the flesh for it to specialize in, hence the multi-specialty groups of demons had formed their depraved practices to increase the diseases and move mankind as far as possible on earth into their realm, spiritually the same thing happens but it is much worse. This is precisely why we are to crucify the flesh and the lusts therein. One can be married and participate fully in an Orthodox Christian marital physical relationship
which is not perverse or depraved in any way, which is why marriage is a sacrament. The sacraments work together for the purpose of our salvation thanks be to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

It further seems to me that there is nothing inherently sinful about sex, the two fleshes becoming one, it is how it is perceived and embraced that matters. If a person is an Orthodox Christian and married and has icons, crosses, and blesses his bedroom (bed) with holy water and prays in his or her bedroom and even on the bed at night that same bed where the two also become one is good when the demon of lust is not served. Marriages are consummated in love not lust. When a man sows his oats for the purpose of bringing forth children or deepening the relationship he has with his beloved wife surely there is nothing inherently sinful about that physical union that is not depraved. It is not shameful for a woman to give her breast to her child to nurse upon, for such a purpose did the Lord God fashion the breast of woman, for a child not a man. The Lord God made man as a man and woman as a woman both whether they are married or not can and should give glory to God for all things. There are Saints that gave glory to God even while being tortured physically or spiritually, it seems to me that the married can give glory to God while not being tortured but rather blessed through the marital intimacy that is blessed when a man is not just a man but an Orthodox Christian husband and God willing a father. The woman becomes a wife and God willing a mother. The master is not the flesh, the husband or the wife. I was just thinking about your nakedness comments, the nudist, streakers and striptease artists say look at me I'm naked and God made my body this way. This is a lie and slander. The body was not made to be defiled or for exhibition purposes in public or in the bedroom. Monks can unify with it for prostrations, and so can married couples. What God has joined together in His Holy Orthodox Catholic Church whether it be a man and woman or a monk and monastery or desert is not without struggles as father Raphael had mentioned. A nun can not be married to a man and bring forth children or experience the love of a husband as a wife does. When a wife prays for her husband or children that prayer is extremely intimate and such intimacy is the fruit of not isolated physical sex but of love physical and spiritual. If a man loves his wife spiritually it is not wrong for him to express that love phyiscally whether it be with a loving hug or the most physically intimate loving hug.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael and Matthew,

Thank you for your responses, both of which rang true to my own experience of marital love.

Fr Raphael, although I agree that sexuality in this world is fraught with danger, and that the "wheat and tares" are mixed together, would it be correct to say that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to set them apart in a Christian marriage? In other words, to use another metaphor, if a husband's desire for his wife was a liquid, this liquid might be part love and part lust; and, by trying to live a spiritual life, the liquid may gradually become, by the action of the Holy Spirit, more parts love than lust, until lust diminishes to the nth degree, but some of it may still always be there, even at the summit of that (theoretical) husband's spiritual perfection. (I consider it self-evident that such a husband will benefit by the efforts of an equally devout and devoted wife, although of course it may also be possible that one partner in a relationship has a deeper spiritual life than the other, and is sanctified even more by the suffering of being married to someone who does not understand them fully, or who by virtue of being less spiritually agile requires much support).

In a way, I read Matthew as pointing out the distinction between lust and love, and Fr Raphael as saying that one has to be especially careful, because in practice the two are often very hard to tell apart, and sit side-by-side in the same human heart. The Christian couple is then faced with the prospect of growing in genuine love for one another, while letting the tares of lust wither in the flame of the Spirit.

Not an easy business - just watch half an hour of T.V. and already you're back to square one!

In Christ,
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,
You wrote:


In other words, to use another metaphor, if a husband's desire for his wife was a liquid, this liquid might be part love and part lust; and, by trying to live a spiritual life, the liquid may gradually become, by the action of the Holy Spirit, more parts love than lust, until lust diminishes to the nth degree, but some of it may still always be there, even at the summit of that (theoretical) husband's spiritual perfection.

Actually I was thinking of a very similar image also! After all is said this is very much a pastoral issue involving real people & real couples. It's easy to see how the issues of a newly married young couple will be very different from those in their more mature or in the senior years. This comes from having spent years together and also having their marriage relationship (hopefully) influenced by the Church. It is natural that the love between a couple will express itself in different ways as the years move along & the Church without forcing the issue too much hopes that this love is gradually becoming more mature in the sense of looking towards what love in the Kingdom must be like. Indeed this happens naturally with a couple as time goes on. They see that their love is not made to be just inward looking- 'gazing eternally into each other's eyes' - but rather that their love is in the image of that of the Kingdom and meant to grow into this.

This also brings up a connected side issue. There was recently an excellent article by Frederica Mathewes-Green called "Against Eternal Youth" about the current trend in our modern culture to keep us eternally young & hence immature. (I'm not sure this is on-line yet. If not perhaps I can post the whole article here later on.) Certainly this affects how we come to and live out our relationships. And surely the Church will call us gradually to mature in our sense of what these relationships should actually be and in how we live them.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theopesta]

JOHN OF DAMASCUS: AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, BOOK II

CHAPTER XXII.

Concerning Passion and Energyhttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

Passion:
is a sensible activity of the appetitive faculty, depending on the presentation to the mind of something good or bad. Or in other words, passion is an irrational activity of the soul, resulting from the notion of something good or bad. For the notion of something good results in desire, and the notion of something bad results in anger. But passion considered as a class, that is, passion in general, is defined as a movement in one thing caused by another

Energy:
... is a drastic movement, and by "drastic" is meant that which is moved of itself.

For energy is a movement in harmony with nature, whereas passion is a movement at variance with nature.

According, then, to this view, energy may be spoken of as passion when it does not act in accord with nature, whether its movement is due to itself or to some other thing. Thus, in connection with the heart, its natural pulsation is energy, whereas its palpitation, which is an excessive and unnatural movement, is passion and not energy

But it is not every activity of the passionate part of the soul that is called passion, but only the more violent ones, and such as are capable of causing sensation: for the minor and unperceived movements are certainly not passions. For to constitute passion there is necessary a considerable degree of force, and thus it is on this account that we add to the definition of passion that it is a sensible activity. For the lesser activities escape the notice of the senses, and do not cause passion

CHAPTER XXIII.

Concerning Energyhttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

All the faculties(7) we have already discussed, both those of knowledge and those of life, both the natural and the artificial, are, it is to be noted, called energies. For energy s is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly, things that have the same essence have also the same energy, and things that have different natures have also different energies. For no essence can be devoid of natural energy

[Theopesta]

http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b05.en.the_illness_and_cure_of_the_soul.02.htm#dar kness http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

Thus, because the nous malfunctions, passions both of the body and of the soul rage. The demons know this well, so they struggle "to darken our noetic faculty". They know that if they darken the nous, then they can easily push a person to do whatever they want. Man can reach a state of madness; being in this condition, we can assuredly say that man does not behave normally. He is antisocial. Moreover, a result of the Fall is the excitement of phantasy and of the demonic thoughts which dominate our memory

[Andrzej Fiderkiewicz]

Hello everybody,

I am an Orthodox Christian from Poland so please excuse me all for my poor English. There is an interesting book on this subject written by Vladimir Moss, who is a reader in one of non-canonical jurisdictions in U.K. Still the book is, in my view, really helpful and provides hundreds on patristic quotes on the subject of human sexuality, sex divisions, marriage etc. It can be downloaded or read here:

http://romanitas.ru/eng/EROS.htm

In Christ,
Andrzej Fiderkiewicz