Jesus and Judaism

[Andrew Latz]

A lot of scholarship goes on (in western circles at least) about just how much Jesus fit in with the Judaism of his day and how much he challenged it and/or diviated from it. Wondered what the Orthodox Church had to say about this and whether much Orthodox scholarship was devoted to it at present.

Cheers,
Andrew

[Justin]

Not a whole lot that I'm aware of. Maybe if I was a student of the Near East at a University I'd know some resources, but right now I'm not aware of any. And if I was, I'd be wary... I've read some of that type of stuff (both concerning the Apostles and Jesus) from the Protestant side, and it seems to me to be rubbish. I know that's harsh, but it is. One book I read, for example, made the Apostles into anti-Jewish-people (=anti-semites)... you see, they needed someone to blame, so they blamed the Jews: the jews became their "satan," their adversary (Elaine Pagels, the Origin of Satan). In another book, which sells itself as non-fiction, we find out that Jesus had issues with his Father and ran away from his parents when he was 12. Jesus apparently hooked up with John the Baptist, but because of that whole father issue he also had arguments and a falling out with John too. Bruce Chilton tells us other such fascinating things in Rabbi Jesus, and like most in this genre of fictional-non-fiction, cares little for the truth, and mostly worries about making his own speculations pulled out of thin air sound exotic enough to sell a ton of books. I can still remember, crystal clear, reading in Chilton's book the phrase "and it is here that we must leave Luke's account"... you see, apparently St. Luke had gotten things wrong.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andrew,

You might be interested to read a work by Jean Daniélou, called The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), which is itself the first volume in the series entitled The History of Early Christian Doctrine. Daniélou is not himself Orthodox but Roman Catholic, so reading this text shall not expose 'the Orthodox view'; but it is a good survey of the material of the first two centuries vis-à-vis the relationship of the early Church to the Judaism from which it had emerged and in the context of which it then existed. Daniélou is a fine scholar, and what is found in this monograph is a rather objective survey of the textual evidence left by the early Christians (Justin, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Papias, the Apostolic Fathers, Theophilus, and several others), and not the kind of fictionalising sensationalism that Justin has mentioned (of which, he is right to note, there is a saddening abundance).

INXC, Matthew

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Andrew and others:

Although the material is extremely scholarly rather than primarily pastoral or directed towards non-specialist understanding, you may perhaps find some useful resources for answering the questions Andrew asks on a Web site that arises from an ongoing seminar led by Fr. Alexander Golitzin, an Orthodox priest-monk-scholar at Marquette University: "The Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism" (http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/). I believe Herman Blaydoe has cited this resource also on another thread.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta J. Heckscher

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Andrew,

I'm interested in the early pre-rabbinic Jewishness of the Apostolic church too. I'm grateful you brought it up here.

Richard

[Andrew Latz]

Thanks for your pointers. I've heard of Danielou but never read any. There is a lot or rubbish in this field, especially from America. However, one man called N. T. Wright is a brillian scholar and has written 3 volumes of a projected 5 volume study into early Judaism, Jesus and the origins of Christianity. I think it could be read with much profit by members of all denominations. They are, in order, as follows. The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God.

I'll look at those other resources.
andrew

[Fr Averky]

Dear in the Lord Andrew,

What does your church and you personally believe about the questions you have posed on this forum?

[Fr Averky]

Sorry, I hit the "post" button before I finished.

I wanted to conclude by saying that I know so very little about Protestantism, although I am aware that it varies in many areas, so I guess I was asking about your particular views -and not to question or argue them, just to know where you are coming from; for instance, what would your pastor or spiritual guide say about your saying the Jesus Prayer as suggested by Bishop Kallistos if one does not have a spiritual father? I myself have never dealt with such a situation, so I am interested from a pastoral point of view.

Respectfully,

Fr. A.

[Richard Leigh]

Hi Father Averky,

Would you like to ask me the question you just asked Andrew too? :-)

Richard

[Richard McBride]

Father Averky asked:

"Dear in the Lord Andrew,

What does your church and you personally believe about the questions you have posed on this forum?"

Thank you, Blessed of the Lord, Father Averky, for asking. Your question made me realise that my mind wonders this same thing when I read questions from outside the pale. For when outsiders are not so forthcoming as Richard Leigh has been, it is difficult to imagine what is behind the question -- what it really means.

A nice little essay could easily be done on this issue of responding to the phantom behind the question. But rest 'easy'. I won't go there.

richard mcb

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest friends in Christ,

I know a messianic Jew who is looking into Orthodox Christianity and is going to visit a Greek Orthodox Church this weekend. I gave him Hieromonk Alexander Golitzin's website at Marquette University and he was simply delighted.

Do you know of any more choice websites or suggested readings?

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Fr Averky]

Thank you, the two esteemed Richards For understanding my post. As Professor McBide rightly says, one has to respect Richard Leigh (even if one not might agree with him) for his open and honest thoughts and opinions.

I found it a little uncomfortable when young Andrew asked this forum what the Orthodox Church teaches about "Women and Leadership," ony to term our answers as "speculative theology." I do acknowledge that in the end, he did apologize for "taking a position," and I really appreciated that. Other than Richard Leigh, one usually cannot get such an answer from non-Orthodox who post questions on Monachos. Recently, a pastor of a non-Orthdox Church posted a question, which set off quite a lively and at times, heated discussion, and when I contacted him privately and asked what his Church teaches on that particular question, he said that he did not want to discuss it. However, I realized that he might be posing questions, not to argue, but is perhaps struggling with his own personal beliefs and needs clarification, love, and spiritual support, rather than being treated rudely, because his real purpose might not be known to this forum. As a convert of many years, I still surprize myself by the amount of Western baggage I still manage to haul around, especially in such areas as Mercy and Justice.

I am sure that all of us are willing to give support if needed. But it is my own feeling that a person can pose a question in humility and sincerety, and with honesty, thus avoiding a confrontation. Just within the week, somebody contacted me privately and asked me all kinds of questions, but told me that they would not tell me who they are. This made a me little uneasy, but that person has posted several times on Monachos, and I would be willing to contact them, if they can simply tell me who they are. Two other people have contacted me and asked if they could make use of some of my posts - I told them "yes," but asked them to tell me a little about themselves. No answer, and no answer since, and I have tried contacting them.

God knows, and you too, my brothers and sisters, I have in the past been "honest" to a fault, and my recent shaking up forced me to look at myself, and reminding me of my duty to approach matters with more love and less pride and arrogance.

I asked Andrew the question because I am interested to know why a person attending Nazarene College of Theology would want to say the Jesus Prayer in lieu of a spiritual father if he might be studying to serve his particular Protestant Church in some capacity. As I mentioned to someone, I do not use a Tibetan Prayer Wheel for my prayers, I do not read the Book of Mormon for my spiritual Reading, I do not read the Egyptian Book of the Dead to prepare for my own, and even though I have great love for the Mother of God, I no longer recite the rosary. I would be fearful, lest some of the spiritual attacks suffered by say, Tibet Buddhists come into my heart and soul, and I would be totally unprepared to deal with them. The Devil knows how to attack the believers of any religion, trying to turn them against the one they acknowledge to be God or gods.I could attempt the practises I have mentioned if I wanted to, and people in the worlkd would not even care, but I would not, because it is not part of my Christian Tradition, and perhaps, and now that I think of it, that is why I do not suggest Orthodox religious practises for non-Orthdodox Christians, for the Jesus Prayer is not ony a deeply personal prayer, but a prayer which unites Orthodox Christians in one Prayer, and those who are not in the Orthdox Church, while praying to God, would not completley share in the unity that Orthodox people do, for the Church is inclusive and not exclusive. Thus am I fearful for the souls of those who say the prayer with no guidance, or who are not part of the Orthodox Church, and am not acting in an un-loving manner at all, but to the contrary, with the greatest love and concern.

Love in Christ

Father. A.

[Justin]

Father, Bless

Father A.,

I don't recall Andrew mentioning "speculative theology" off the top of my head, but it might be possible that he was only responding to my own usage of the term (and not meaning anything against Orthodoxy). Andrew (who I do think is sincere in his questions) had originally made a point based on historical circumstances (what Jesus might have done because he was in culture X), to which I said that I didn't necessarily agree with his speculations regarding culture X, and that we also had to take into account that Christ our God (ie. through his body the Church) was going to missionize culture Y. So, if Andrew used the term speculative theology, and it happened to "come off wrong," it was most likely my fault since I originally brought it up.

I would also like to apologize to Andrew for being so negative in my original post to you. The truth is, I've actually considered majoring in Near Eastern Studies when I return to college; I just get a bit cautious when the subject is brought up since there is so much... forgive my boldness! speculation and misinformation on the subject. Much of the stuff by, for instance, the Jesus Seminar types is totally half-truth. Yeah, it's based on textual sources and archaeology, but then like people in a few other disciplines (e.g., secular anthropology) they seem to try and force an entire picture on us when they really only have a few pieces of the puzzle.

To be a bit more positive, I'd strongly suggest reading most of the early Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/) as they talked quite a bit about the relationship between the Judaism of their day, the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Elijah, etc., and the Christian Church. For starters, Saint John Chrysostom's homilies on the Sermon on the Mount (Homilies 15-25 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/TOC.htm)). He discusses in depth, for instance, how the old law compares with the teachings of Jesus, why certain laws were given as part of the Mosaic law, etc..

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky (and anyone else interested),

I just want to say a few words, as a protestant as to why a protestant might be interested in any particular prayer prayed by other Christians.

We Protestants consider ouselves "Christians" which, for the Informed among us, means that we are of the "catholic [note the lower case "c"] church," i.e., that we are generally Christian, part of the Body of Christ, etc. I am not being polemical here and I am well aware of the "branch theory" of ecclesiology and I am not here inviting polemics against this position, I am only letting you know how we protestants feel about ourselves in our relationship to Christ and His people, which, for us, includes all who believe in Him. We believe we can tell the difference between a pagan prayer and a Christian one, generally by whom is addressed. We feel that it is our right as believers to approach the throne of God in the Name of Jesus His Son because of His shed blood. We ought to be aware of the spiritual battle we're in, and certainly know about the armor of God as given in Galatians chaptrer 5. While we are probably naive as to the depth or magnitude of the struggle, especially since we have little if any experience of ascetics, we think it odd that someone would warn against a prayer or consider its use dangerous. OTOH, Pentecostals and those who involve themselve in what they call direct spiritual warfare do make such warnings, but not against the weapons of our defense or of offense against the enemy, but against certain varieties of the enemy. Unfortunately, our "Western mindset" prevents us, I think, from divorcing the therapeutics of ascetic practice from the concept of earning favor from God, left over from the Reformation period (and still found in R. Catholicism.

The "Jesus Prayer" has quite a little bit written about it, and given from the Orthodox perspective it is given as part of a therapeutic ascetic course of action with a promise of achieving what to most of us sounds like a gereater degree of closeness to God, which is a concern of certain "pietistic" brands of Protestant, particularly "evangelical" Christianity. THis would be the reason for the interest. I won't go into why some of us would criticize others of us for embarking on such an enterprise, as that is all "in house" stuff that you would not be interested in, and would only serve to show the disintegration latent in not being "In the Orthodox Church" to begin with.

Be aware that I have already gotten all the explanations from the Orthodox side already, so, don't anyone feel impelled to pull them out again, but I sensed you wanted to know from our side where the curiosity was coming from.

So, there it is. If there are any other protestants on the list who would like to modify any of this by additions or subtractions, or any Orthodox converts from protestantism that might like like to as well, certainly feel free to do so. Also, I don't mean to turn anyone away from salutary comment, I just didn't want anyone to waste there time or energy on what has already been so well said.

Yours,

Richard L.

P.s., We don't think the devil has to work half as hard on the unbeliever, their prayers are to him in the first place. The struggle begins in Christianity, which is not to say that there aren't other religions that work at defeating the passions, and quite succesfully too. That mighty come in handy when repentance unto faith occurs! R.L.

[M. Rallis]

Dear Richard Leigh:

The protestant movement began as a reaction to a sorry state of affairs in the post-schism Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. The founders of that movement, and, indeed, all the subsequent founders of the various protestant sects, could have sought to join themselves to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but chose to join in a church of their own making. In our Orthodox Divine Liturgy, we pray for:

“ the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit, that we may commit ourselves and one another and our whole lives to Christ our God”.

To me, there is fundamentally a great difference between the former and the latter. The Jesus prayer is a product of the latter point of view, and its use by people sharing in the former point of view is indeed problematic, as Father Averky has instructed. A scalpel in the hand of a classically trained medical doctor is a different proposition than the same scalpel in the hand of a doctor trained in chiropractic methods. So, no matter how confident the chiropractor is in his ability to use the scalpel, someone needs to caution him against the harm he may cause.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Michael,

What an interesting and easy thing to say! The historical realities made it a bit more complicated than that, and the divisions were not so clear cut as we are prone to read back into them from our own place in this 21st century e-mail shrink-wrapped world.

Lets take a look. First of all there were the major Sees in the East Rome was out of touch with by language (Latin) and centuries of dark ages, where learning had been preserved primarily in the Celtic monasteries.

It was the forensic or judicial view of guilt and grace promulgated in the development of penance as a sacrament, whereby grace was "earned" by ones own "good works", or someone elses if you paid for them, that eventually led to Luther's 95 Theses. That, and the concept of the "sacrifice of the mass," as one of those "good works" one could pay for, and the Roman Pontif's hold on the churches and the princes is all the Reform was originally about reforming. But then, the whole concept of what a sacrament was, and how the heavenly interacted with the eartly was subject to review at the time, and many went many different ways.

The differences with the east,of course, were linguistic and philosophical, not to mention theological. Some Western humanists were interested in patristic studies, but I fear they couldn't understand them very well at the time. Also, the Turk, the "tail of the Anti-Christ" to Luther, was quickly swallowing up the world, begining with the Phanar.

ITMT, there were Bishoprics in the West, one of their major questions was why obesience to the Pope? Any Pope? In their opinions, the truth was easy to see as was falsehood, so, they kept the truth that had been taught to them and through out the falsehood

Some of them, Lutheran professors at Tuebigen University began a dialogue (rather, sought to resume the dialogue Melanchthon had attempted some 14 or so years earler) with the EP. That didn't turn our too well, but you might be surprised to learn that one of the things they did agree on was Augustine's idea of original sin, though maybe we'd better see how it was put in the revised version of the Augsburg Confession translated into Greek with the help of an Orthodox Deacon.. It may turn out that he didn't really say that, I would like to find out myself.

But the Evangelical Church was a church, it didn't create anything new, it simply shed itself of Pontifical acresions, and went on in the biblical truth, as far as anyone could tell at the time.

The Western Evangelical Church had sought to find itself in the East, but neither was it able to, nor was the East able to find itself in that of the West. We aought to applaud the attempt and continue the dialogue IMO, and perhaps try to rid ourselves of what seems like American Triumphalism.

I didn't follow what you meant by "former, and latter." Also, when do you think the Jesus prayer was formulated? Regardless of when it may have been, which would that have to do with what Christians prayed it? Regarding the scism, I would count it as starting about the time of the institution of the 2nd Reich, i.e., the so-called "Holy Roman Empire," and I would lay it on phyletelism.

So, I don't think it was all as easy as you suggest, but the Lord has tarried to give us time to get it right.

Richard

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dearest Friends:

Christ is in our midst!

Since I was formerly a member of the Catholic Charismatic movement, perhaps I can share some of the dangers of praying without true repentance, preparation, or guidance. There were times when the Protestants would come to join us in prayer. Then there were times when the demonic was felt. The leaders in the charismatic movement warned us that only those who had been praying and fasting and who had been specially appointed should pray the prayers of exorcism, otherwise, harm could come. There were leaders who committed horrible sins, scandalizing us, because they did not pray and fast, nor did they have anyone to guide them. Our Lord Himself advised His Apostles that certain demons could only be cast out by prayer and fasting.

One of the problems with praying the Jesus Prayer unaided by a good Spiritual Father is the problem with pride. Without proper spiritual direction with a holy Priest or monk, it is so easy to fall into prelest or self-deception. The devil, himself, can appear as an angel of light and can deceive even the faithful. Books cannot help a person here. That I found out from experience.

Hope this helps,

Elizabeth

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Elizabeth,

Yes, thank you, that was very helpful. It also goes to show that those of us who were in the charismatic movement were on to something powerful.

Certainly, one thought that to be Chistian was to be penitent. But sadly, you're right, so few are.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Friends,

As Richard Leigh rightly expresses, we have discussed this matter before, and I want to make it clear that I condemn no one for saying the Jesus Prayer, I am only firm in cautioning those who decide to take it upon themselves to use it as part of their own prayer life, and that caution goes for anyone - Orthodox or non-Orthodox to be careful and discerning-I just am concerned lest anyone be caused spiritual confusion or damage by the temptations attached to the Prayer. A person can say the prayer if he so chooses, but I maintain that the experience for a non-Orthodox person would not be the same as that of an Orthodox Christian.

If Richard Leigh, who says that he has said the Prayer for years, feels that it has been to his spiritual benefit, then thank God! As I have said so many times, and do so again, I have to go by what I have been taught. I am not answerable to God for what Richard does, but I can only pray that he will reach salvation, and it is because of my sincere concern for his soul that we have come to some very unpleasant moments on this forum. In the end, what will be for dear Richard is between Richard and God, who knows his heart and soul.

I did not say that the Prayer of the Heart is dangerous, I said that there is the real danger of temptations and attacks by the Devil against those who are saying it. As a point of reference, not relying on my own words or thoughts, I quoted St. Ignatii Briachaninov, a great ascetic and Orthodox spiritual author of the early nineteenth century. I tried to explain myself by using the example of the Tibetan Prayer Wheel; in Tibetan Buddhism, there are dancers who wear masks which look like demons, which, if I am not incorrect, actually serve to ward off the demons. If this is so, I personally feel that if I started to use Tibetan prayers or chants, it could open the door to an attack by demons, for which I would not be prepared. We must always be aware that there is dark world which constantly wars against us, and we are told that we war against Principalities and Powers, Dominions, and the like, who are of the ranks of angels, higher spiritual beings than ourselves, and of great power, but having been cast out from God, those powers are evil and dangerous, for they constantly seek the ruin of souls through pride, vaingory, and all deeds which can cause the damnation of the soul and eternal lose of God. If we think that they do not exist, then they have won a great victory. Thus, this is not just an intellectual question, but one of the soul and its relationship to God. I am not attempting to push others away from the Prayer, I just want them to be safe, spiritually speaking. So Richard, when you say the Prayer, pray for me, and may God cover you, and me as well.

I have in no way wanted to insult Andrew, but I really am interested what he or his Church teaches about the questions he has himself posed, and as of yet, have received no answer. I feel that if a person can post questions, I would think that he would be willing to answer some, but so far -nothing.

With love and concern,

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Ricard,

I do believe that at the time in history you are describing, there were still those among the Latins who could read, write, and converse in Greek, and there were still those Greeks who could read, write, and converse in Latin. Much of civilization was preserved not only by the Celts, but many many monasteries, especially by the Benedictines.

Fr. A.

[M. Rallis]

Dear Richard Leigh:

“Augsburg And Constantinople”
The correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession.

By Very Reverend Father George Mastrantonis
Holy Cross Orthodox Press
1982

This book runs 350 pages and includes correspondence but not the Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession itself. Also, Father Mastrantonis provides a nice section on historical background. ( Not that I am special, but I did have the undeserved blessing of meeting Father George while I was in under-graduate school there in St. Louis.)

[Andrew Latz]

Justin,

you are right that much speculative work goes on in the historical study of Jesus. You are right that the work of the Jesus seminar of America is, frankly, woefully inadequate. For a good critique see NT Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God.

However, two points. Firstly, we must not separate theology and history. This (a point that is Wright's not mine) is a false dualism from the Enlightenment.

Secondly, EVERY understanding of Jesus has, implicitly or explicitly, some understanding of what Jesus was saying in his own context and how that applies now. That is to say, historicaly reconstruction is inescapable. Therefore, we may as well be open about it and try to do as good a job as possible using all the sources we can. Furthermore, the nuances and details of that understanding are massively important because Jesus is the foundation of all we do.

Hope that's not too boringly obvious
in Christ
Andrew

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear fellow discussion participants:

Father Averky's cautions about using the Jesus Prayer without an (Orthodox) spiritual father have been very thought-provoking, and I thank him for them. One aspect of the issue that I think has not been mentioned is that the Jesus Prayer is very ancient, going back to the era of the Undivided Church (or at least to the time before the Great Schism). In that sense, it is part of the inner heritage of Western as well as Eastern Christians, just as is (for example) the legacy of St. Benedict of Nursia, even though he is primarily identified with the West just as the Jesus Prayer is primarily identified with the East.

So isn't it possible that in praying the Jesus Prayer, Western Christians are not adopting something alien but returning to the hidden roots of their own faith? Of course, the degree to which their current faith maintains continuity with those roots varies greatly. But isn't it possible that the Holy Spirit could use their offering of the Prayer as a way to lead them back to the fullness of faith (dear Protestant friends, you will understand that I am expressing the viewpoint of the Orthodox Church here)? Isn't it possible that the Prayer, if prayed faithfully, soberly, and with true humility, might indeed become (as it often does for Orthodox) something close to the center of their lives, such that the rest of their faith might be transformed by it into the ancient fullness of faith which once united East and West alike?

I recognize that the Jesus Prayer cannot and must not be approached lightly or carelessly, and that the demons are always ready to trip the soul that is advancing towards Christ. Nevertheless, I find myself wondering if, alongside the possible dangers of its misuse (for Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike), its transforming character--transfiguring, if you will--might not also offer special opportunities to those estranged from the ancient roots, still fully alive in Orthodoxy, of their own faith.

But perhaps I am being naive or simplistic.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[Andrew Latz]

Jurretta: Good point well made.
Andrew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Michael,

I envy your meeting with the good Father. The book you cite was his popularization of his Master's Thesis for Concordia (Lutheran)Theological Seminary here (in St. Louis) as you probably know.

Since you cite the book, it surprises me that you made the comment you did.

Richard

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dear Jurretta:

Christ is glorified in His Saints!
May He also be glorified in us!

Have you ever read the book The Mountain of Silence by Professor Kyriacos Markides? It is available now in paperback from Amazon.com

Dr. Markides writes a very interesting book from the psycho-sociological perspective. So as he writes it, you see him growing in the knowledge of the faith. A great read.

In Dr. Markides' journal, Archimandrite Maximos of Mt. Athos discusses the Jesus Prayer in depth, perhaps not to the degree you would wish, but he has some interesting comments about it that are not covered elsewhere.

Yours in Christ-God,
Elizabeth

P.S. My dearest Matthew:
Please tell me how I can combine both bold and italics.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Fr. A,

Regarding your post regarding education levels during the dark ages in Western Europe. Most education was done by and for the church, in the West, and few commoners had many letters. I don't know about the East, which was much more urban than the West, but I stongly suspect there were a good deal of educated people among the masses. I am not sure they were interested in Latin though, but, I am convinced that knowledge of Greek was at a super low ebb in the West. The rennaisance was all about re-introducing Greek learning to the Latin West, and that was what all the excitement was about, a literal re-birth of civilization. Also, I was talking about a period of about 700 years, from the coronation of Charlemaigne in that year to the mid-16th century.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

My Dear Richard,

we are in agreement here;when I spoke about people bering able to speak Latin or Greek, I was not talking about the masses. I meant that despite the collapse in the Western Roman empire, there were still enough educated men who would have known Greek, and that communictaion with the Eastern patriarchates would have been possible, had there been a great desire.

Sincerely,

Fr. A.

.

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Jurretta,

Thank you for your kind, loving, and thoughtful post. One source gives the beginning of the Jesus prayer from the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 9:27 "And when Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed him, crying and saying ,Thou Son of David have mercy on us"

From the loving perspective you have given, anyone can call out to God for mercy. I always find it my responsibility to say what the Orthodox Church says about what I might post. In the end, each person's relationship is with God is his own, and God alone know his heart and intentions. As I said yesterday, I desire not to push others away from the Prayer, I just want them to receive the blessings that come from approaching this great Prayer with understanding, humility and fear of the Lord. It might even be that if a non-Orthodox says the Jesus Prayer with love of God, he may in time become Orthodox. My heart-fealt desire for all is eternal possession of God.

Love in Christ,

Fr. A.

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Elizabeth:

Thank you so much for this reference. I have read The Mountain of Silence and found it fascinating and illuminating. My initial skepticism ("what can an academic sociologist, even one of Greek Orthodox heritage, tell us about Orthodox monasticism?") was replaced as I read by gratitude and respect for Fr. Maximos's wisdom and generosity in sharing so much with Professor Markides, whose own faith clearly deepened and became more Orthodox as a result(and I suspect that the same thing is likely to happen to many who read this strange but quite wonderful book).

So, yes, Elizabeth--Fr. Maximos's willingness to share many of the insights of Orthodox monasticism with those who are not yet fully in the Faith seems to assume the possibility of the transforming dynamic that I was discussing in my post. Thank you!

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Father Averky:

Thank you for your luminous and loving words!

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[M. Rallis]

Dear Richard Leigh:

Actually, it was from my having read Father Mastrantonis’ book several years ago that I was prompted to make my comments. Participating in this thread has given me occasion to review what I remembered, and re-reading has confirmed my take on the correspondence between Augsburg and Constantinople.

Basically, the theologians from Tubingen sent a Greek translation to the Ecumenical Patriarch, Jeremiah II, of the Augsburg Confession , with the following, quoted from page 27 of Father Mastrantonis’ book:

“Furthermore, I am sending you a little book that contains the main parts of our entire faith, so that Your Holiness may see what our religion is, and whether we agree with the churches under the jurisdiction of Your Holiness; or whether perhaps, there might be something that is not in agreement (which I would not desire).”

In the first exchange from Constantinople to Augsburg, the Ecumenical Patriarch goes point by point through the Augsburg Confession, acknowledging points of agreement, and providing the Orthodox position of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in a clear and systematic manner on all points where the Augsburg Confession deviated from the belief and faith held by the Orthodox. His Holiness Jeremiah II closed his first exchange to the theologians of Turbingen with the following salutation quoted from page 103 of the book:

“O most wise German men and beloved children of our humble self, since, as sensible men, you wish with your whole heart to enter our most Holy Church, we, as affectionate fathers, willingly accept your love and friendliness, if you will follow the Apostolic and Synodal decrees in harmony with us and will submit to them. For then you will indeed be in communion with us, and having openly submitted to our holy and catholic church of Christ, you will be praised by all prudent men. In this way the two churches will become one by the grace of God, we shall live together hereafter and we will exist together in a God-pleasing way until we attain the heavenly kingdom. May all of us attain it in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs glory unto the ages. Amen.”

In my post #39 I made the following point:

“The protestant movement began as a reaction to a sorry state of affairs in the post-schism Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. The founders of that movement, and, indeed, all the subsequent founders of the various protestant sects, could have sought to join themselves to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but chose to join in a church of their own making. In our Orthodox Divine Liturgy, we pray for:
“ the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit, that we may commit ourselves and one another and our whole lives to Christ our God”.
To me, there is fundamentally a great difference between the former and the latter.”

So, I meant by the “former and the latter”: the former were the founders and leading theologians of the protestant movement who could have joined themselves to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church but chose not to, and the latter were the Orthodox faithful who in every Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom celebrated , are praying for the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

What I took from Father Mastrantonis’ book was that there was a clear and easy opportunity, indeed, an open invitation from the Ecumenical Patriarch, for the leading theologians of the protestant movement to join themselves with the Holy Orthodox Church. History teaches, that the theologians of Tubingen chose, instead, to be joined to a church of their own making.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Dear Juretta,

re your post no. 20; where can this book by Father Maximos, The Mountain of Silence, be obtained? I should very much like to read it so if you can supply details of the publisher that would be much appreciated.

the seeker

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dearest MA

Markides, Kyriacos C.,The Mountain of Silence, A Search for Orthodox Spirituality, London: Doubleday, 2001. ISBN 0-385-50091-2
BX382 .M375 2001

Hope this helps!

It is now available in paperback and you may order it (as well as used copies) through Amazon.com

Yours truly in Christ-God,
Elizabeth

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Heartfelt thanks, Elizabeth H.

the seeker

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Seeker:

The Mountain of Silence: A Search for Orthodox Spirituality, by Kyriacos C. Markides, was first published in New York by Doubleday in 2001, but there is now a paperback edition also (Image Books, 2002), which in Britain is available through Amazon.com-U.K. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/) and, I would think, through larger booksellers.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

(My apologies, Seeker and Elizabeth--I didn't see Elizabeth's post before I posted my message.)

--Jurretta

[Marie Quirk]

Dear MA,

You may want to check your local library where I happened upon this book myself. It was a delightful surprise and I checked it out twice so I could take time to ponder some of Father Maximos' teachings.

Peace and joy in Christ to all,
AMA Quirk

PS The town I live in is not that large and there are not many Orthodox Christians here so I was rather happily suprised to find it.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest friends:

Re: The Mountain of Silence

I went to a women's lenten retreat offered by Mother Victoria of Santa Barbara, California, in 2002. She told the ladies gathered that if they were having problems getting their husbands to go to church on Sunday, they should think seriously of purchasing this book and placing it on the coffee table.

Several of the ladies had already purchased the book, which their husbands hid and devoured before the wives had a chance to see it. The men were indeed changed!

Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,

The Westerners all thought of themselves as "Catholic." Both those who remained under the Papacy and those who did not.

For all their differences, the Reformers, and the Church they tried to reform but were excommunicated from were in agreement about the Filioque issue. Thus generally speaking no need was seen to put themselves under the authority of an Orthodox Patriarch, and they certainly didn't think they had loost anything by being "cut off" from what they considered anti-christian leadership and institution which fostered the sale of indulgences and stood in the way of preaching the gospel.

Richard

P.s., more on my next post to Michael as well as you. --R

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Michael, and Fr. A,

Given that you've read and re-read Mastrontinis' book, Michael, what do you think of Patriarch Jeremias' subscription to the Augustinian view of the fall?

Also, did you notice that approximately half of the correspondence was devoted to defense of positions regarding the Filoque clause in the Creed?

The bottom line of that private correspondence was that neither side saw the other as truly "orthodox".

The other major problem between them was that the Lutheran side could not see ascesis as anything more than earning merit, alla the indulgence system, and the Orthodox side seemed unable to understand how it could be seen like that.

Remember also though that there seemed to have been at least a modicum of interest in the Western reformation on the part of some persons in the east which was why Melanchthon got that visit from the Deacon whose name is escaping me at the moment.

Important to my mind is that Melanchthon the "Humanist", more inclined to be patristic, was the one who initiated the overture to the EP, and revised and translated his Confession as much according to an Eastern theological and liturgical mind set at possible. It is my belief that he thought what he had produced was truly and patristically Orthodox. Too bad, IMO that the Patriarch to whom he sent that copy never got it, and that Melanchthon did not live to participate in the dialogue. I do believe things would have taken a decidedly different turn if he had.

I mean by that, as evidenced by his continual refining of his Confession, on the basis of new things he learned, that, had he seen the response from Jeremias that the Tubingen scholars saw, he would likely have revised the document accordingly and sent it back for further review.

Also, I deplore the factr that no one thought of sending the Patriarch the Large and Small Catechisms. That should have dispelled the false idea that the Lutheran's believed "Faith alone" meant that they didn't think Works were required.

Most importantly of all though is that the whole philosophical system that lay behind the Filioque needed to come under serious review. I fear that I don't believe even Melanchthon would have been able to see his way to that, though who knows?

But of course this is all so much conjecture, yet, I believe a trail has been blazed that we can still cross back and forth over.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

My Dear Richard,

I am a little confused, because I do not know what you are referring to on your post #202, but I do find it interesting, and I thank you for it and the one following. If you were talking about the Reformers being able to speak Greek , I am sorry, I did not understand that, so now your post make sense. I believe your response is more for Michael.

respectfully,

Fr. A.

[M. Rallis]

Dear Richard Leigh:

I guess, from the contents of your post, that the beautiful and loving salutation, from his Holiness Jeremiah II that I quoted, didn’t have quite the same impact on you as it did on me!

You note that one-half of the correspondence has to do with filioque, that “most importantly” the philosophy behind the filioque needed serious review, and that the “bottom line” was that neither side saw the other as Orthodox. I guess you are indicating that a more prolonged intellectual exchange would have brought one side or the other into agreement with the other.

But in my opinion, the Ecumenical Patriarch offered a more pertinent method of achieving union, and again I quote:

“...if you will follow the Apostolic and Synodal decrees in harmony with us and will submit to them. For then you will indeed be in communion with us, and having openly submitted to our holy and catholic church of Christ, you will be praised by all prudent men. In this way the two churches will become one by the grace of God, we shall live together hereafter and we will exist together in a God-pleasing way until we attain the heavenly kingdom.”

My take is that the missing ingredient was not a stronger intellectual rationale nor a more in-depth logical treatise, but was simply the need for sufficient humility to truly listen to, and hear, what Jeremiah II was saying and offering. The quotation above, to me, recapitulates the Liturgical prayer that I quoted earlier: “...having prayed for the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves, and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God.”

In any event, the opportunity was lost, and the next 400 years saw the further proliferation of the Protestant movement into hundreds (thousands?) of denominations, a far cry from what the Orthodox are praying for in each Divine Liturgy. An interesting irony, to me, is the contrast between the response given by the Ecumenical Patriarch to the theologians of Turbingen, and the response received by Fr. Peter Gillquist and the Evangelical Orthodox by the Ecumenical Patriarch in our era.

Finally, you are not doing me a favor by provoking me to try and judge what his Holiness Jeremiah II meant in regards to original sin, nor will I presume to be even capable of such a task, and just pray that God will continue to love me despite my stupidity ( God bless Rebecca for another memorable phrase!). Father Gillquist has written a book, “Becoming Orthodox”, which describes a trail traveled with success in our time. Perhaps this is the trail that we need to focus on as being an effective way to expand the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Michael,

What the Reformers needed to bring them to Orthodoxy was a clear picture of what was wrong with being, or wanting to be, Western Catholicism.

The Augsburg Confession (AC) was a document presented to Holy Roman emperor Charles V, at his order. He had identified with Charlemaigne and had vowed, upon taking the the throne that he would defend the Catholic Church. At this point we are already in trouble, because, Charlemaigne had "invented" the Holy Roman Empire in compitition with the True Roman Empire, which was Orthodox, and thus had invented, or provided for the invention of the imperious Western Papicy in contradistinction to the Conciliar See of Rome.

The Lutherans' first order of business was to assure their potentially antagonistic emperor that they were not foreign, but accurately represented what he had vowed to defend. They did not succeed at this, he did not believe them, but they were not trying to deceive him, they belived they were correct in their own self assesment (but the papacy, which had a stake in preserving the sale of indulgences to, among other things, finance the building of St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican also did not believe them). They called for a council, but one (the Tridentine) was not given until it was too late.

This is the document that was sent to the EC to establish to him the Orthodoxy of the West. Is it any wonder that it was not successful?

I am convinced that the Reformers did not know any of this, but I don't know what they could have done had they known.

The problem for the discussion was that nothing in the document indicated why it said what it said, for that its Apology was needed.

Given that none of the Tubingen scholars translated the AC themselves but only sought dilegently until they found the one Melanchthon translated, under a pseudonym, I am not surprised that its Apology was not translated to meet the patriarch's objections, or that passages in the Large Catechism was not used to justify "good works."

But what was really needed on the part of the Tubingen scholars was instruction in helleno-patristic thought process. I grant you that they might have been able to learn it had they become Orthodox, but I am not assured of the fact (which only means I cannot be assured that they'd really have become Orthodox if they did what they thought Patriarch Jeremias II said to do).

What may have been needed on the part of the EC was instruction as to how to instruct them, but who could have known that then? So, the Lord has tarried until now.

Richard

P.s., according to former bishop Jensen of Holy Trinity Evangelical Orthodox (now, OCA) Church, Indianapolis, the EC would not even see Gilquist and company on their arrival. As to its success, some became Orthodox and some did not. ---R

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dearest Richard:

In your most recent post, you used the initials "EC" but did you really intend to use "EP" (Ecumenical Patriarch). Father Peter Gilquist went to Constantinople with a group of the Evangelical Orthodox but the Ecumenical Patriarch refused to see them.

The Evangelical Orthodox approached the Melkite Catholic Church first, from what I was told, and the Vatican said that they could not be accepted as married Catholic priests because they were not Episcopalian priests.

Did you read Becoming Orthodox by Peter Gilquist which was published by Conciliar Press?

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

[M. Rallis]

Dear Elizabeth:

I had never heard about Father Gillquist having approached the Melkite Cahtolics. Are you sure that is factual?

[M. Rallis]

Dear Richard Leigh:

Yes! The irony to me is that in the 16th century, Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II sought to lead the Lutheran theologians to unity with the Holy Orthodox Church, even though they may or may not have been even interested in union, while in our own era, the sons and daughters of the Reformation, having found Orthodoxy to be the one, true Church, strongly sought to join her, but never got to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch. In his book, Father Gillquist refers to political, or Byzantine, intrigue as circumventing the planned meeting with His Holiness, Demetrios. Of course, the determination of the Evangelical Orthodox was not overcome by this obstacle, they persevered .

“Speaking very personally, though I suspect my situation in the 1980's was representative of many of us, I did not come to Orthodoxy because I was attracted by a new potential for spiritual life. I came because I was convinced biblically and historically that the teachings of the Church were correct, that this was the true faith. In the process I discovered the true spiritual depth of the Orthodox faith......

The reality of this worship has opened for us the door to a fullness of salvation we did not know was there. It has brought about a sense of wholeness for our people we did not have before. Functioning together as a corporate priesthood, a Eucharistic community, had been an aspect of salvation omitted and overlooked in our earlier days. And that ‘mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won’ brings an element of spiritual life which is beyond description. I knew those words by heart and had utterly missed their meaning. Now I’m becoming acquainted with the saints who have gone on before, not just as names to be remembered, but as cherished friends.

The farther we have gone on this journey, the more we have read, encountered, and experienced Orthodox spirituality firsthand, the more we have learned to appreciate its great depth and beauty. The soil is rich and fertile; there is room to put down roots ad grow for a lifetime.”

Father Peter Gillquist, “ Becoming Orthodox”, Epilogue.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest Richard and Michael:

Re: The Evangelical Orthodox

A deacon in the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church told me that he was present when the Melkites gave the Evangelicals a tour. Since the Vatican requires that candidates for the married Priesthood be converts from the Episcopalian clergy, etc., the Evangelicals would not be acceptable candidates for the Catholic priesthood. Besides, the question of Papal powers and infallibility is a major stumbling block for many Protestants.

In his book, Becoming Orthodox, Father Peter Gilquist didn't even realize that Orthodoxy still existed until an acquaintance who was attending St. Vladimir's Seminary in Crestwood, New Jersey, told the Orthodox Church in America about them. When the OCA pastor of St. Innocent Church in Tarzana drove up to Santa Barbara, that was when the Evangelicals had their first encounter with a representative of Orthodoxy. At this point, the Evangelicals began to realize that the Orthodox position was correct. It then became a matter of trying to join the Orthodox Church instead of attempting to reinvent it.

Incidentally, Gilquist also contacted Dr. Scott Hahn when Scott was on his journey to Catholicism. Scott, however, decided to embrace Roman Catholicism because of its opposition to contraception.

Yours truly in Christ,
Elizabth

[Herman Blaydoe]

It might be worth noting, that at the time of much of the "negotiations" between the Evangelical Orthodox and the established Orthodox Churches, Fr. Gilquist and was a self-proclaimed "bishop" and married. As I understand it, this was a major obstacle at first with the Orthodox who were not interested in talking with a married bishop. In great humility, Fr. Gilquist decided that he would be willing to be accepted into Orthodoxy not as a bishop. I have heard that he might not have been as flexible at the beginning of the discussions which hindered negotiations at first. If I am not mistaken (I could be), his visit to the Ecumenical Patriarch was as a "bishop" which might have factored into the EP's decision at the time.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest Herman:

You could be correct. Conversion is a process. Humility takes a lifetime to learn. We're always being tempted and have to be vigilant.

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Herman,

You might be correct but as Metropolitan MAXIMOS (from Pittsburg) was their sponsor, I would be very surprised that he hadn't warned them of that.

Richard

[Scott Pierson]

ather Averky's cautions about using the Jesus Prayer without an (Orthodox) spiritual father have been very thought-provoking, and I thank him for them. One aspect of the issue that I think has not been mentioned is that the Jesus Prayer is very ancient, going back to the era of the Undivided Church (or at least to the time before the Great Schism). In that sense, it is part of the inner heritage of Western as well as Eastern Christians, just as is (for example) the legacy of St. Benedict of Nursia, even though he is primarily identified with the West just as the Jesus Prayer is primarily identified with the East.

I understand what you are saying ... but..The westerners where Orthodox at the time. I wouldnt consider the Catholic or protestant churches to be the true heirs of St Benedicts faith. Sometimes I think calling Orthodoxy "Eastern" or the "Eastern Church" (though it can be useful in certain circumstances) isnt always that great of an idea. I think it can cause confusion and really works to defeat our claims to be THE CHURCH in the minds of many. People say "Orthodoxy isnt the Church is just the eastern branch of the divided Church". The Catholics dont call themselves " the Western Catholics" or "Western Christians" they call themselves the Universal or Catholic Church or even just "The Church". I think Orthodox should do the same. Stop emphasizing Easterness and start emphasizing catholicity and universality. How many times I read books by Orthodox authors who seem afraid to call the Orthodox Church THE CHURCH, the one the only.... The Modern Latin Church is NOT the Western Church.. If you want to call something "the western Church" you can call the OCA that ;).

I would also add that the current Church is undivided. People and even whole patrichates can separate themselves from the Church but the Church itself is never divided.

I wonder if its just something peculiar to westerners to always refer to the Orthodox Church as the Eastern Church? Do Russians or Greeks always do that ?

Scott

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I wonder if its just something peculiar to westerners to always refer to the Orthodox Church as the Eastern Church? Do Russians or Greeks always do that ?

It's very, very rare for a Russian to refer to eastern Orthodoxy. He or she would likely just refer to the Orthodox Church often without even identifying it as Russian except to clarify not being part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church or Old Rite, etc.

Maybe the phrase 'eastern' arose in the west at a time when high-church Christians in the 19th c were more interested in Orthodoxy. At the time just due to circumstances like not so much immigration yet to the west, Orthodoxy was eastern. Also this was the time when these types of Christians were seeking to put more more depth into their practice of the Faith by a return to the Fathers, a richer liturgical & sacramental life and a more ascetic piety. Many looked to Orthodoxy as a type of Christianity which had preserved these things although in a different form from the west. So saying eastern referred to the difference from the west but also the sense that east & west could complete each other.

Now I think in the western mind saying eastern Orthodox just adds up to exotic. By this they don't mean strange. Rather it's part of the contemporary mind-set of life representing a giant food mart where there are endless & equal choices to satisfy one's desire. Orthodoxy is found in the aisle marked 'ethnic & exotic foods'. Somehow the fact that there is such an aisle in our food store makes us feel more inclusive.

Don't be fooled. Even if we present Orthodoxy 100% in English for most in our society it's still part of the 'exotic foods' aisle & one of a thousand other equal choices.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

Well said, Fr Raphael. Might I add that, to my knowledge, the only words the Slavs have ever used to refer to the Church have been Pravoslavnaya Tserkov (Orthodox Church), with or without an ethnic reference. Similarly, the Greeks would use Orthodoxi Ekklisia, and, where required, add tis Ellados (of Greece). I have never come across the words vostochno and anatoliki (eastern) as adjectives pertaining to the Church.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Well said, Fr Raphael. Might I add that, to my knowledge, the only words the Slavs have ever used to refer to the Church have been Pravoslavnaya Tserkov (Orthodox Church), with or without an ethnic reference. Similarly, the Greeks would use Orthodoxi Ekklisia, and, where required, add tis Ellados (of Greece). I have never come across the words vostochno and anatoliki (eastern) as adjectives pertaining to the Church.

Yes you're completely correct. It would be pretty bizarre to hear a normal Russian speak about being part of the Vostochnaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov. In your ear it's a bit of a contradiction in terms since Pravoslavnaya has such strong connotations of something correct, right and universal. From my brief time in Greece it seems Ortho-doxis has a very similar connotation.

Our English use of the word orthodox has become tainted with the meanings of unthinking rigidity & external behaviour.


In Christ- Fr Raphael