To be or not to be 'passionate'

[Patrick Walsh]

I frequently see passages telling us to conquer our passions, asserting that passions lead us away from God, and towards unvirtuous activity.

And elsewhere I see passion as being a key element in a virtuous life, e.g., "A thirst for God like a waterless plain,..." and even "The Passion of Christ."

Up to now, I have been able to live with this apparent contradiction, but now I find myself in more and more situations where I am required to explain this more fully. I have often tried to change the latter usage of the word "passion", the one leading to virtue and salvation to "zeal." This has always satisfied me, but not those Protestant and Catholic friends who challenge this.

What is the correct understanding of this issue? How did the Fathers separate out the two usages of the word "passion?"

Thanks
Patrick

[Antonios]

This is from the glossary to the Philokalia:

passion: in Greek, the word signifies literally that which happens to a person or thing, an experience undergone passively; hence an appetite or impulse such as anger, desire or jealousy, that violently dominates the soul. Many Greek Fathers regard the passions as something intrinsically evil, a 'disease' of the soul: thus St. John Klimakos affirms that God is not the creator of the passions and that they are 'unnatural', alien to man's true self. Other Greek Fathers, however, look on the passions as impulses originally placed in man by God, and so fundamentally good, although at present distorted by sin. On this second view, then, the passions are to be educated, not eradicated; to be transfigured, not suppressed; to be used positively, not negatively.

So, even amongst the Fathers there lies some confusion,. My very little understanding is that the second view is the more widely accepted (although I may very easily be wrong, and I hope someone will correct me if I am).

in humility and love,
Antonios

[Theopesta]

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

{the definition of passions of the soul is this:
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}

{passion: a movement in one thing caused by another.
Energy: 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}

in book iii chapter xv st. john speak about the passion and human nature of christ.

as I can not understand perfectly so I can not write a brief point but I feel the knowledgeble people can explain more

in one christ, theopesta

[Theopesta]

Dear friends,

please can I say that the word passion said about the complete sensation with suffering of the complete human nature of the incarnated WORD.

also it is one of the blessing of the incarnation as GOD declare to us what the good passion which acceptable and important to our human nature

are these notions correct or not??

thanks,
IN ONE CHRIST, theopesta

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Patrick and Antonios,

In response to Patrick, Antonios wrote:


So, even amongst the Fathers there lies some confusion. My very little understanding is that the second view is the more widely accepted (although I may very easily be wrong, and I hope someone will correct me if I am).

What you wrote seems spot on, really. I personally have some reservations with the phrase 'even amongst the Fathers there lies some confusion', not because there is a problem with the idea of the father expression confusion (which they do, and which is entirely understandable and acceptable in an Orthodox mindset), but because I'm not entirely certain that's what's being encountered in this context. Confusion generally relates to not fully understanding, or perhaps not knowing fully how to relate and experience; but the fathers do not seem to be deal with these situations here -- rather, with the expression of various, equally true aspects of the reality of 'passion'. I.e., it is true to say 'the passions are things which should be killed', and 'the passions should be healed and transformed'; seemingly contradictory statements which nonetheless are both true and differing contexts of discussion. When 'pathos' is being used to describe the passions as experienced in fallen reality, the idea of 'killing' becomes most apt: destroy the fallen that infects the pure. When the passions are spoken of more along the lines of the realities of human being, scarred and misused by sin, then the idea of 'killing' is inappropriate, and 'healing' becomes useful. But I would not say that this nuanced usage represents confusion -- rather, a way of speaking of complex reality.

The most poignant example to me has always been of the repeated scriptural and Gospel injunction to love one's enemy and store up no hatred in one's heart -- exemplified in Christ who overturns the tables at the temple.

INXC, Matthew

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear forum members,

St Gregory Palamas, says that the passions are not part of human nature and that they were not constituting one of its natural elements “from the beginning”. He says that they are movements and actions foreign to the natural life of man. He says: “They are perverted ways and wormy ways indeed, the hatred, the falsehood, the deceit, the envy, the greed, the pride, and the similar”, which are not only being committed but they are also being loved and are being accepted by the mind as rational, thus they make man worthy of God’s distaste. The causes, which create those, are the “immoderation” and the “misuse”. For example, for the passions which are related to taste the cause is not the food, but the misuse of taste which is the voluptuousness. Voluptuousness results in surfeit, gluttony, heavy drinking and drunkenness.

When man denies to live his life according to his nature, and according to his natural relation with God and instead, through his senses, abase himself to passionate adhesion on the world then, “he misuse the faculties of his soul” and from that the detestable and atrocious passions are inevitably sprouted.

The “immoderation” and the “misuse” originate first form the deception of devil and then from the collaboration of the will of man with the devil. This deceitful and invidious energy of the devil with the voluntary ignorance of God, by man, create the exceeding attachment to the sensible world which thereinafter produce the passionate love for it and infuse the life of the fallen man with passionate energies, creating the law of sin, which is named by the Apostle: “mind set on the flesh”.

(Romans 8:5-13)
<font face="courier new&#44;courier">“For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace. Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not submit to the law of God, nor indeed can it. And those that are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. But if Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit indwelling in you. Therefore, brothers, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you shall die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live”.</font>

May God bless us, all.

[Antonios]

Well written, Matthew. It is actually I who am confused, not the Holy Fathers!

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Matthew and all,

Matthew wrote:


The most poignant example to me has always been of the repeated scriptural and Gospel injunction to love one's enemy and store up no hatred in one's heart -- exemplified in Christ who overturns the tables at the temple.

This specific scene in the gospels has always been a source of confusion (as well as inspiration) to me. Anger is a serious sin, yet the Lord here seems to be angrily overturning the tables of the merchants. I suppose that righteous anger and certainly Divine Wrath are not the same as impassioned, hate-propelled human rage, but I would appreciate some further clarification of this, especially in the light of this discussion...

Thank you Matthew for your consistently balanced and informed perspectives.

Then Leandros wrote:


When man denies to live his life according to his nature, and according to his natural relation with God and instead, through his senses, abase himself to passionate adhesion on the world then, “he misuse the faculties of his soul” and from that the detestable and atrocious passions are inevitably sprouted.

The “immoderation” and the “misuse” originate first form the deception of devil and then from the collaboration of the will of man with the devil.

It seems clear that when man consciously collaborates with the devil, this is a distortion and misuse of his nature. However, what puzzles me is not so much the voluntary consent to sin, but the question of what these "faculties of the soul" look like in their natural state, in living relation to God. When we are in our natural state, perhaps we don't experience "passions" in the pejorative sense in which these are understood, but do we nevertheless experience drive, energy, yearnings and longings and attractions? Or are these also the result of sin?

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

One cannot, in principle, arrive at a dogmatically pure formulation of the issue, because it remains a question, part of the mystery of reality. What appear to be contradictory positions by the Fathers are not, in the context of the mystery. Nor do those things that appear to us as contradictions within Scripture yield to dogmatically perfect formulations, apart from entering the mystery. Reality as man experiences it is a paradox from the Beginning. Creation is paradoxical. What kind of God would create a world He knew He would have to save? There is no dogmatic formula that can answer that question. IT remans a question. But it is not sufficient to simply state that reality is a mystery. It is our nature to speculate as to God&#39;s true and perfect intention, because thereby we are formed and informed by His Grace.

Generally, we can say that the Greek tradition posits a God who is utterly impassive &#40;that is to say, without any feelings, sensations, passions&#41;. The Syriac tradition is quite different. God is filled with feelings, passions, and represented more naturalistically, concretely, than in the abstract, Greek sense. It is a different way of experiencing, perhaps that is, in some degree, reflecting the difference between living in the city and living in the desert.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Leandros, you wrote:


St Gregory Palamas, says that the passions are not part of human nature and that they were not constituting one of its natural elements "from the beginning".

Ah, but you cannot simply read St Gregory alone, and take this as the sole voice of the fathers! This is just not the way the Church does things. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

What has been pointed out in various ways in the preceding posts (as in other threads of late) is precisely that the fathers speak on this subject in different ways, to different ends, for different reasons. Owen took things out of the realm of specific examples and boiled down the idea:


One cannot, in principle, arrive at a dogmatically pure formulation of the issue, because it remains a question, part of the mystery of reality.

This is what is clearly borne out in the patristic witness. As I tried to point out in my above post, the fathers do not speak uniformly on this matter. One of the points that causes confusion in modern readers and hearers (such as the implied others with whom Patrick has recently found himself in dialogue, as he related in his original post in this thread) is precisely this tendency of the patristic heritage to treat of pathos in these various ways, coupled with the rampant modern-day desire to have all things meet with a single, final, 'ultimate' definition. But again, this is just not the way the Church does things.

St Gregory's explanation is not -- is in fact far, far from -- the only voice on this matter.

INXC, Matthew

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear friends,

I think there is a problem with homonyms. Passion is not the same as passion.

There is the passion for drinking and there is a passion for art and there is passion for money and there passion for sex and there is passion for justice and there is passion of love and there is the passion of the Nature and there is the passion of Christ and there is natural passion and denaturated passion. There is passion that consumes otherness and there is passion that consumes self.

While all these are named as “passions” they are not one and identical.

Dear Matthew, honestly, I am interested in specific examples where “the fathers do not speak uniformly on this matter”. During my study of several patristic documents and from my life in the Church, I understand that there is symphony between them on the subject of passion/pathos. I am very interested to see how is there such non-uniformity. I would appreciate if specific examples would be presented in order to help me understand the respective differences between the patristic presentations of passion. I wait for your clarification because I understand that St Gregory Palamas does present the catholic position of the Church on the subject of passion/pathos and you countersay that he does not.

St Paul wrote (Galatians 5:16-26): “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.”

I understand that this passage is a summary of the unanimously accepted, by the Church, definition of “passion” as it is analyzed and presented by the Fathers and by St Gregory Palamas. (In the above passage the word 'flesh' is used by St Paul in the Judaic context, that is, it denotes both soul and body natures of man as a united alive 'flesh')

May God bless us, all.

[Patrick Walsh]

After reading this wonderful discussion, I have come to an understanding of something, although I have to admit, Leandros&#39; object that Passion is not the same as passion is still a bit of a conundrum to me.

But there is a bit of a perspective problem here. We are talking about passions in general, and showing how the Fathers talk about them in apparently contradicting ways. But that is because we have isolated the concept of &#34;passion&#34; from the activity of &#34;passion.&#34; There is &#34;passion&#34; in an abstract sense, which has already been well documented above. And there is passion, the actual movement of passion--the stirring of passion.

Passion is in general bad, because it separates us from God. It occludes the divine Image of God that is within each of us. But even a passion for learning Holy Scripture can do this. Such a passion can lead to pride, and envy, and contempt for those who do not study scripture. For the most part, these passions come from the body, and are initiated by the physical conditions of the body &#40;thirst, hunger, comfort, addiction, ...&#41; or the emotional conditions &#40;pride, envy,...&#41;. These passions must be killed outright. All of these passions separate us from God. This is the stage of purification in the Way of Christ, according to St. Isaac of Syria.

But then, St. Isaac of Syria makes a very important point. As the purification of these passions increase, a new passion emerges from within. It is the thirst for God, that the Psalmist says is a &#34;thirst like a waterless plain.&#34; This is a yearning that God has instilled in what St. Gregory of Palamas calls our natural self, the Image of God that is within us. This passion is according to St. Isaac the Syrian, and the other Syriac fathers is limoid, it lacks the quality that the other passions have, of rising and falling as they are stirred and quenched. It is untroubled by the physical conditions or emotional needs.

This limpid thirst for God is easily overwhelmed by the other passions, and we easily put it aside. But the more we arrest the passions of the world, the more this limpid passion of the spirit gains in strength. This passion will lead us to perfection in God, to our theosis. St. Isaac teaches that the most powerful antidote to the passions of the world is mercy, and that we should cultivate this quality within us.

The passions of the world bind us, imprison the Image of God within us in clouded darkness from which it cannot be seen. Mercy is the Sun that beats away the darkness of the sun so that the true nature of each Man can emerge and shine forth--it&#39;s limpid thirst for God. And following this thirst for God, we will become perfected in God. These are the three stages on the Way of Christ according to St. Isaac of Syria, purification, illumination, and perfection. At least that is how I understand it so far. I am only beginning to piece all of St. Isaac&#39;s teachings together.

Please correct any errors. I hope I am on the right track.
Patrick

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

What kind of God would create a world He knew He would have to save? There is no dogmatic formula that can answer that question. IT remans a question

Dear Owen Jones,

Let me answer directly to your question: “Your God and my God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit !”

Creation and salvation are not subsequent energies of God. They are actualized in time, for they are being manifested in creatures, but they originate and they exist before/beyond/after time within the Trinity Life – not as a future plan but as the pleasure of the Father through the Son in Spirit to create and save His creation. There was not a time when the Father did not have the pleasure to create us or a time that the Father did not have the pleasure to save us. And He is always pleased in creating and saving us through the Son in Spirit. The actual "timing" of creation is not a decided specific time, for there was not the dimension of time yet. Nothingness was never, creation was always - this is our presentation of created being - and in this context creation was never absent in the dimension of time. That is why St John wrote (John 1:1) : 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'. This means that there was not "time" with no Creation, "in the beginning" is time zero and by that St John presents that never was there a creation-less time.

God did not perform an imperfect world which was then in need for perfection. While a creature has many possibilities to choose from, God does not act in a mode of freedom of choice, but being Uncreated, he exists in a mode of freedom of affirmation. As St Paul wrote: (Ephesians 1:3-6) “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.”

The chosen ones were not chosen among others, but they were chosen “in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without blame before Him in love having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself”. The predestination is not a plan of the feature, but, in creation, God called us from non-existence, thus we are creatures, to participate in His uncreated existed relation With His Son, in His Son. This adoption is not an aftermath of creation; it is embedded in the creation.

St Nicolaos Kavasilas says: “When in Genesis it is written: ’Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good’ (genesis 1:31), what God saw, was the Virgin Mary”. The most difficult subjects of creation of world and of salvation are solved when we take in account the Mother of God. The world is meaningless without her and your question assumes creation as an abstract materialization of a divine plan, and ignores the Mother of God. If you include her in the picture everything does makes sense.

God did not "create a world He knew He would have to save", the Father created a world in immediate and absolute relation with Him through Christ, in Spirit within the Trinity life. But for the creatures the Trinity life, as well as every ontological realm, are pre-existed realities and therefore they are optional. Even before the Incarnation of Christ, the Virgin, in her wisdom and through her human natural faculty, restored the original created relation with God. Therefore she restored the original perfection of creature before the incarnation of Christ. Her accomplishment was seen in advanced by God and ‘Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good’.

Christ’s incarnation is not a follow up to creation. He is not a creature. Christ is the New Adam, not as a restoration of the old creation - that was done by the Virgin - but He is a New born Child, “new” in every sense, so new that there is no one like Him not on earth, or on heaven, He is the only One God-man, yet “He was in the beginning” (John1:1) and “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him”(John 1:10), therefore we are “adopted as sons by Jesus Christ to Father according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved”.

Looking at the Virgin we see that God did not create a world He knew He would have to save. He created a world that 'indeed it was very good’.

Most Holy Mother of God save us, all.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Leandros' object that Passion is not the same as passion is still a bit of a conundrum to me

Dear Patrick Walsh,

Let me explain what I meant. In many cases things are said to be named with the same word, as a common name, but the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. For example the word "family" is used in the following forms: "the family of leandros" and "family of products" and in each case the same word "family" corresponds in an absolute different definition.

In this context, I may say "family is not the same as family". And in this context I wrote "passion is not the same as passion".

Of course, if I say "family of Leandros" and "family of Patrick" the family has in both cases a univocal meaning.

PS: I think you presented brilliantly the teachings of St Isaac.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Leandros, you wrote, regarding varying views on passions:


Dear Matthew, honestly, I am interested in specific examples where "the fathers do not speak uniformly on this matter".

At some point I will try to compile a few texts and reference them here; but this will undoubtedly take me some time, as these current weeks are the busiest of the year. In the mean time, I would recommend an open reading of the first volume of the Philokalia, with an eye particularly toward comments on training the passions, directing one's anger, as part of the ascetical endeavour.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've been re-reading the more recent posts in the above thread, which I have been unable to follow with the same kind of daily routine as usual. As has come up rather a lot recently, it seems to me that there is some very loose use to terms and ideas that is promoting some strange views. These seem like good points for discussion and clarification. A few passages from the above posts:


Creation and salvation are not subsequent energies of God.

It is important to note that neither creation or salvation are 'energies' of God. They are the workings of the energies of God in the cosmos of his fashioning. This seems especially important to maintain, especially in a thread where Gregory Palamas is figuring rather prominently. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Then:


God did not "create a world He knew He would have to save", the Father created a world in immediate and absolute relation with Him through Christ, in Spirit within the Trinity life. But for the creatures the Trinity life, as well as every ontological realm, are pre-existed realities and therefore they are optional. Even before the Incarnation of Christ, the Virgin, in her wisdom and through her human natural faculty, restored the original created relation with God. Therefore she restored the original perfection of creature before the incarnation of Christ. Her accomplishment was seen in advanced by God and ‘Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good’.

Christ’s incarnation is not a follow up to creation. He is not a creature. Christ is the New Adam, not as a restoration of the old creation - that was done by the Virgin - but He is a New born Child, "new" in every sense, so new that there is no one like Him not on earth, or on heaven, He is the only One God-man, yet "He was in the beginning" (John1:1) and "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him"(John 1:10), therefore we are "adopted as sons by Jesus Christ to Father according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved".

I find a number of the assertions here deeply troubling. Firstly, to give a radical 'no' in response to the question 'did God create a world he knew he would have to save?', seems very much in line with the kind of turn-black-into-white projects we've talked about recently. There seems to be an implicit reaction to a specific notion not actually indicated in the question. To say a flat-out 'no' presupposes a very narrow view of the word 'save' and what it means, and goes against the witness of such fathers as Irenaeus, who clearly answers this question with 'yes' -- an answer that is equally clear (though perhaps less explicit) in Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa and others.

Second is the idea of the Mother of God 'restoring the original perfection of creature before the incarnation of Christ'. This is nowhere attested by the fathers, as far as I am aware. What the fathers do say is that the redemption worked in Christ is begun in the response and life of the Virgin; that she 'initiates' the mystery of the incarnation; that it is she 'in whom salvation is begun'. It is not possible for the Mother of God herself to 'restore the original created relation with God', precisely because the object of perfection and fallenness is not simple 'relation' of this kind. This is purely existential relation. The fathers describe relation with God as grounded in the ontology of our being: the fabric of our nature, which can be restored by merely an outwardly relational act. The incarnation is the ground of salvation -- foreshadowed and initiated by the Mother of God.

Third is the question of Christ's incarnation itself, raised in the above quotation. There seems to be a confusion of the comments raised against Arius, and the matter of the incarnate Christ. The incarnate Christ is a creature, even as he is eternal God. He has become one of the creation, 'that which thine own hands have fashioned, thou hast become'; though he remains also and at once the eternal Son of the Father, 'for this was a divine condesension, and not a change of place'. It is absolutely essential that we maintain the creatureliness of Christ incarnate, precisely because it is in the creatureliness, united to the divinity, that the authentic restoration of human nature is wrought. Once again, this has bearing on the nuanced discussion of 'relation' and 'essence'.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

For the benefit of Leandros, or perhaps others who might be confused on this issue, doctrinal formulations develop in the Church in response to heretical movements. They develop for two reasons, one theological/spiritual and one political. There is never any intention that doctrinal formulations and credal statements fully express the Divine Mystery. If that were true, subsequent to Nicea we could have all packed our bags and gone home, no need for any more theological orations. So to try to tell us who and what God is through a doctrinal formulation is like trying to tell us what a rose is by telling us it is red. Or that it is composed of certain biochemical compounds and processes. You simply cannot tell us what a rose is because at a certain level it is a mystery. No amount of description can even begin to penetrate the mystery.

Mystery is not a solipsistic formulation. It is the primary reality that we all experience, and deny all the time, because our fallen intellect wishes to explain everything.

So the question, &#34;What kind of God would create a world that He knew He would have to save,&#34; is not a question with a formulaic answer, but a question that evokes the Mystery. In humility of spirit the only response is awe, wonder and faith.

The common error in theology is to treat God as an object of investigation. The theological formulation is then posited as a &#34;definition&#34; in the same sense that we define a chair as a chair or wood as wood. But God does not reveal data and information about Himself. He reveals Himself. We are not investigative subjects of His objective existence.

A good way of appreciating the experience of Divine Mystery is to read Gregory of Nyssa&#39;s Life of Moses.

[Tim Grass]

Thanks Owen... I really like the way you said that.

--tim

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Owen,

I very much appreciated your most recent post in this thread &#40;your no. 1127&#41;, particularly your comments on the relationship of mystery and the expression of that mystery. This is reminiscent of the discussion on experience and doctrine that we had not so long ago in the &#39;Preserving Orthodoxy&#39; thread.

This seems to me to hit on one of the most fundamental points of authentic Orthodox theology, that is most put at risk through the &#39;study&#39; of doctrine, of history, of the fathers -- all of which are good things in their own right. The danger comes precisely in believing, explicitly or implicitly, that the formulations of this study and reflection are themselves definitive of the God they relate, when in fact the work of the fathers is to articulate the encountered reality of God in such a way as fosters encounter. This is why &#40;to bring together some of the issues of various current threads&#41; there is no single patristic or ecclesial definition of pathos/passion; there is no single response to various issues of anthropology; there is little desire, overall, to enforce a singular way of envisaging central doctrinal matters. Doctrine is the articulation of mystery encountered, intended to foster further encounter with that mystery. As Gregory of Nyssa remarked in his comments on articulating doctrines of God as Father, Son and Spirit, to say that God is &#39;Father&#39;, or to say that he is &#39;divine&#39; or &#39;Trinity&#39; or such, tells us something about God, but does not itself relate the fundamental who of the one who is these things.

Most heresies in the history of the Church can be tracked down to a fundamental desire to take one aspect of the articulation of God and extol it to the exclusion of others. That the Son of God is divine leads to Arianism. That he is man leads to Nestorianism. That God is pure leads to Donatism. That he is just leads to predestinarianism. That he is one leads to Sabellianism. And on we go. Of course, each of these assertions -- the Son is divine, the Son is human, God is purity, God is just -- is absolutely true. But the experience of the God who is these things goes beyond the limitations of strictures formed out of one or another taken in some kind of strict rhetorical isolation.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Thanks for the above comment. A Christian sermon, to be Christian, must evoke the mystery and the urgency of turning around. By reducing theology to facts about God, we kill the mystery, and who needs conversion? We already know everything, so what is there left to do? Other than make a bargain with God so we can get a good deal at death?

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Owen Jones,

I am trying to understand your post No 1125 in the frame of your post No 1127 &#40;which expresses perfectly the limitations of created life as it meets with the Uncreated Life&#41;.

Now, I cannot understand if you question in post No 1125 was a rhetorical question or a real question. Because if the formation of an answer is impossible, which is the case presented in message No 1127 – a perfectly stated message – likewise impossible is the formation of the respective question.

Thank you for the clarification.

Leandros

[Owen Jones]

Is a rhetorical question an unreal question?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

A question like &#39;why would God create a world he would have to save?&#39; has real value inasmuch as it has multiple answers. The question should evoke aspects of the immensity of the mystery of God -- God has the power to create, so yes he would; but he is good and loving, so he would not; but &#39;salvation&#39; is not simply correction, but perfection, so yes he would; but God is perfect creator, so no, he would not. The temptation to try to give a single, all-encompassing answer, is to transform the question into the first half of a formula, and void it of its true theological value.

This goes back to the question of the passions. &#39;Are the passions good or bad?&#39; is a question of similar scope. Passions are the fallen attributes of our carnal nature, so they are bad; but they are also the inherent impulses of our created nature, so fundamentally they are good; but they are the perversion of nature rather than the purity of nature, so they are bad; but the perverted can be purified, so they are good; etc. To pick a single response and exalt it as &#39;the one answer&#39; is to void the question of genuine insight into the true mystery of humanity and the life in Christ.

INXC, Matthew

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Matthew,

your last message no 812, is irrational, thus it presents in a perfect way your point, which is genuinely Orthodox!

But still, &#34;language&#34;, and &#34;reality&#34; are isomorphic. The question &#34;why would God create a world he would have to save?&#34; is twofold; first, there is a question: &#34;why ...?&#34; and then a fact: &#34;God create a world he would have to save&#34;. If the fact is &#39;real&#39; then the question would receive an answer &#40;univocal or manifold&#41;. If the question is rhetorical it would never receive a real answer. For example the question &#34;why God created a world he would have to destroy?&#34; will never receive a real answer.

It seems, to me, that the anthropology of the Church Fathers about &#34;man&#34; is not apophatic in a similar scope that their theology about &#34;God&#34; is. For example, when we ask &#34;why?, how?, what?&#34; about God, the answer from the Church Fathers is apophatic: the answer is manifold and presents at the same time and simultaneously both negative and affirmative contra-propositions that restrain our mind in order not to incline in either way, because it is impossible to present God neither with affirmative or negative clauses, for He is absolutely simple with no contraposition in Him. Therefore, the mind stays static &#40;metewron&#41;. But when we ask about man, the questions &#34;why?, how?, what?&#34;, the answer is not apophatic, because man is brought into a composite world and the created reality is mainly composed by the opposition of “being” and “not being”. So, the univocal or manifold answers regarding questions about humans are not analogical to the apophatic answers regarding questions about God.

According to my understanding of Patristic analysis, the created way of being of man may accept several answers at variance, regarding question about created life, because it is a dynamic way of being, but ultimately the idiomorphic created reality is expressed dynamically by the Church Fathers with an isomorphic language - something, which is not possible for them &#40;or anyone else&#41; to do in the case of God’s &#40;or Christ’s&#41; idiomorphous way of being. Therefore, the question “Are the passions good or bad” does has one answer, which is not a static answer, but a dynamic one. St Gregory Palamas does not present a definition of passion as a ‘snapshot’ of passion, but as dynamic configuration of the soul: “they are movements and actions foreign to the natural life of man”, although they are not part of human nature and that they did not constitute one of its natural elements &#34;from the beginning”. St Gregory says that “Man misuse the faculties of his soul” thus passions emerge as operations/agencies of an active soul which has been deceived by the devil and which is helpless in being voluntary ignorant of God. Passions, by St Gregory are: passionate operations/agencies, creating the law of sin, which is named by the Apostle: “mind set on the flesh”. This explanation from St Gregory Palamas was presented in my previous post #312 (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=16234#POST16234).

Matthew, you wrote in your last post: “Passions are the fallen attributes of our carnal nature…, they are also the inherent impulses of our created nature…, they are the perversion of nature rather than the purity of nature…, the perverted can be purified”. Your presentation is exactly identical with St Gregory’s presentation that I had included in my previous post #312. But we should underline here that you use the same word for two distinct different things: passions that “are the fallen attributes of our carnal nature and which are the inherent impulses of our created nature” are operations/agencies of our soul, “movements and actions” as they are called by St Gregory, while the passions which are “perversion of nature rather than the purity of nature” and which “can be purified” are faculties /powers of the soul, “misused faculties of the soul” as they are called by St Gregory.

So, in this context in the first volume of philokalia there is a presentation of training passions, directing one&#39;s anger, as part of the ascetical endeavour, wherein the word ‘passion’ is used for the powers of the soul and not for the operations of these powers. These powers of the soul are trained to operate in a different configuration, so that the same power of the soul that acts as the agent of anger against the fellow man, to be trained to act against sin. This is presented in St Gregory’s analysis too.

If we mark the homonymous use of the word passion in the patristic texts and then descry the specific meaning &#40;operation or power&#41;, then the voice of the Fathers would become united in symphony, else the whole subject becomes odd, for the likeness of the word makes us to thing that the corresponding definition is identical in every case and that the fathers are not in agreement with each other, however they are using the same word for different definitions. There is no contradiction in saying that “the passion is purified” and in saying that “the passion is destroyed”, because in the first phrase the word passion denotes the purification of the power/faculty of the soul and the in the second phrase the word passion denotes the destruction of the operation/agency of the power of the soul without the destruction of the power of the souls itself, which is preserved in any case.

At this time, I have the feeling that you interpret the phrase: the passions are not part of human nature and that they were not constituting one of its natural elements &#34;from the beginning” as a static definition of passions; you understand this phrase as saying that both, passions as operations of the power of soul, and passions as the powers of the soul that generate these operations, should be rejected, as being both non-natural elements “from the beginning”. But St Gregory explicitly says &#40;in his analysis&#41; that the power, from which the passions are generated from, is part of the soul, and it should be protected from devil and purified by the Grace of God in order to operate virtues instead of passions. According to St Gregory the “foreign movements and actions to the natural life of man” should be rejected and the appropriate to its nature movements and actions to the natural life of man should be reinstated. Maybe my previous post was not clear on this point, and through our discussion I take the opportunity to clarify it. &#40;This is my mistake and not St Gregory’s&#41;

Elder Paisios said: the heart is like a factory, working all the time. If the owner of the factory provides gold as raw material, then it will produce gold chalices, if he provides silver then it will produce silver chalices, if he provides brass then it will produce brass chalices, but if he provides gunpowder, the factory will produce guns. In all these cases the owner is responsible for the outcome, not the factory.

May God bless us, all.

&#40;Message edited by lpap on 08 October, 2005&#41;

[Theopesta]

Dear celestial companion:
I find that:

1- st. jhon of Damascus AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, BOOK II:CHAPTER XXII/Concerning Passion and Energy

But to speak broadly and generally, passion is an animal affection which is succeeded by pleasure anti pain. For pain succeeds passion, but is not the same thing as passion.

For passion is an affection of things without sense, but not so pain. Pain then is not passion, but the sensation of passion

2- st.Clement of Alexandria/ the instructor/ bookII/ chapter X: CHAP. X.QUAENAM DE PROCREATIONE LIBERORUM TRACTANDA SINT.

For nature never can be forced to change. What once has been impressed on it, may not be transformed into the opposite by passion. For passion is not nature, and passion is wont to deface the form, not to cast it into a new shape

THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES: BOOK VI /chapter VII about the incarnated God If I am not mistaken:

And so it is wholly true according to [God's] intention, as being known through means of the Son. And in one aspect it is eternal, and in another it becomes useful in time. Partly it is one and the same, partly many and indifferent--partly without any movement of passion, partly with passionate desire--partly perfect, partly incomplete.

in chapter IX:
For by going away to the Lord, for the love he bears Him, though his tabernacle be visible on earth, he does not withdraw himself from life. For that is not permitted to him. But he has withdrawn his soul from the passions. For that is granted to him. And on the other hand he lives, having put to death his lusts, and no longer makes use of the body, but allows it the use of necessaries, that he may not give cause for dissolution.

THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES: BOOK VII/chap.II:

Nor does He ever abandon care for men, by being drawn aside from pleasure, who, having assumed flesh, which by nature is susceptible of suffering, trained it to the condition of impossibility....who, for His exceeding love to human flesh, despising not its susceptibility to suffering, but investing Himself with it

THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES: BOOK VI /chapter IX:

We must therefore rescue the gnostic and perfect man from all passion of the soul. For knowledge (gnosis) produces practice, and practice habit or disposition; and such a state as this produces impassibility, not moderation of passion. And the complete eradication of desire reaps as its fruit impassibility

THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES: REST OF BOOK IV /chapter XXII:

Wherefore also the Lord enjoins "to watch," so that our soul may never be perturbed with passion, even in dreams; but also to keep the life of the night pure and stainless, as if spent in the day

THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES: REST OF BOOK VII/chap.XI:

This is the really good man, who is without passions; having, through the habit or disposition of the soul endued with virtue, transcended the whole life of passion

chapter XII:

he who has not formed the wish to extirpate the passion of the soul, kills himself. ignorance is the starvation of the soul, and knowledge its sustenance

THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES: REST OF BOOK V/ chap.XIII:

For all depravity of soul is accompanied with want of restraint; and he who acts from passion, acts from want of restraint and from depravity.

I think no contraindications between the holy fathers but each one speak or concentrate on certain point in the same issue being sojourns in the same way the solitude, st. ISSAC and st. PALAMAS the two are similer in their analysis to the passion

I will be enjoyed with corrections and clarifications
IN ONE CHRIST, theopesta
P.S.: I ask the forgivness of all members for long post, I hope this not cause load on the layout of the page</font>

[Theopesta]

Dear celestial companions
this in book III chap. XX:
st. jhon of Damascus AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

sin is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us by force

about the incarnated WORD:
that He assumed all the natural and innocent passions of man. For He assumed the whole man and all man's attributes save sin

For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man.

All, then, He assumed that He might sanctify all. He was tried and overcame in order that He might prepare victory for us and give to nature power to overcome its antagonist

Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ.

pray for me in one christ, theopesta

[Theopesta]

st. jhon of Damascus:
AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH
in book III/ chap. XXVI:

Concerning the Passion of our Lord's body, and the Impassibility of His divinity

For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity, and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering

the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only the body. but the divine part which is void of passion does not share in the suffering of the body

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Theopesta and all,

I've come across this passage from St John Damscene before, and need further clarification in order to understand it. St John seems to be contradicting himself, as well as including some very odd things in the category of "natural and innocent passions".


He assumed all the natural and innocent passions of man. For He assumed the whole man and all man's attributes save sin. For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man. All, then, He assumed that He might sanctify all. He was tried and overcame in order that He might prepare victory for us and give to nature power to overcome its antagonist. Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ.

Firstly, how are the above passions "natural and innocent" if they have entered into our lives "owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression", i.e. presumably St John is talking about the result of the Fall. But then St John goes on to say that these same natural passions were "Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ". So is he saying that Christ, by taking on these natural passions in their fallen condition, brought them back into alignment with, or harmony with "nature and above nature" i.e. transfigured them perhaps, by returning them to their pristine, Edenic forms?

The list St John gives is also puzzling: Hunger and thirst, OK. Weariness as fatigue, OK. But is "labour" a passion? Are "the tears" a passion (OK, maybe he means sadness here)? And how "natural and innocent" is "corruption" (unless of course he is referring to natural ageing, but then again, is the ageing process a passion? Or a result of the passions?)?! Fear and agony, OK; but "succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature"? What's this last thing? Is it a passion? Or is St John simply saying that what we put ourselves at risk for as a result of our human weaknesses, the angels then have to protect us from?

Clarifications of any of the above would be most welcome!

In Christ
Byron

[Theopesta]

Dear Brother Byron:

I am waitting DR. Math to give more clarifications
also he said in his post 812:


Passions are the fallen attributes of our carnal nature, so they are bad; but they are also the inherent impulses of our created nature, so fundamentally they are good; but they are the perversion of nature rather than the purity of nature, so they are bad; but the perverted can be purified, so they are good; etc. To pick a single response and exalt it as 'the one answer' is to void the question of genuine insight into the true mystery of humanity and the life in Christ.

as I understand after fallen man become in need to the protection of angles but before he noot need he see GOD and in his presence always.

the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature not passion but one of the concequences of the fallen.

after sin man need to eat and thrist as the fallen nature to not die but before fallen if he not eat for long time are he feel or become weak??!!

I am waiting the response
in one christ, theopesta

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Theopesta,

The question over such things as the succour of the angels, is not quite the same thing as the passions. &#39;Passion&#39; &#40;pathos&#41; generally refers to the actions on a being &#40;e.g. a human person&#41; wrought by outside forces, even if &#40;as a consequence of fallen reality&#41; these can be internalised as &#39;impulses&#39;. In a sense, a strong sense, these are then regularly bad: pathos represents the passivity of the individual -- another &#40;or another thing&#41; acts upon it, rather than it acting for itself &#40;thus &#39;kill the passions&#39; and purify the creature&#41;. However, as creature, and material creature at that, humans will always have a passive element as intrinsic to their being; so the impulses of such pathos &#40;anger, jealousy, joy, hate, love&#41; are not in this sense to be irradicated, but purified.

The sense of your question about angels, angelic care for man, etc., seems slightly different in focus -- though related inasmuch as it brings to mind the question of what is &#39;fallen&#39; in the creature. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that for several early fathers in particular, human persons needed angelic care, support and guidance from the very first, before sin, as part of their imperfection as created beings.

INXC, Matthew

[Theopesta]

DR.MAT.
I owe you a debt for the enlightened words

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Ditto from me, Matthew. This is actually an issue that has been perplexing me for some time, and you&#39;ve very simply clarified it for me.

Thanks again,

In Christ
Byron