'Mystical' spirituality

[Teo Kia Choong]

I actually read a section of John Julius Norwich's History of Byzantium, which was talking about the heychasm movement, as one which utilised certain spiritual exercises like staring at the navel and using that point as a point of meditation and others. What exactly were the implications of heychasm that led eventually to a council that had to deal with it theologically before finally endorsing it as a mystical movement in the East? How would it be viewed in Orthodox spirituality today though, and where in the East do we witness such traces of heychasm?

I actually read John of the Cross, a post-Reformation Spanish mystic who talks of the purification of the senses to allow for a final union with God, somewhat akin to theosis. How different is he from the heychasts?

[daniel harrison]

Ive never read it or hurd of it before but it sounds intresting.

In Christ +
Daniel the Byzantine Cath

[Daniel Jeandet]

Try reading the book "Saint Gregory Palamas as a Hagiorite" by the Metropolitan of nafpaktos Heirotheos.

Very good book, should answer your questions on this subject.

[Fr Averky]

Dear friends,

There can be no true comparison between Orthodox and Catholic monastic saints, although crude attempts have been to do so, like trying to compare St. Francis of Assisi with St. Seraphim of Sarov..No two people could be less alike.

I have been interested in asking other Orthodox community members, especially those among the priests, if anyone has ever heard an Orthodox saint referred to as a "Mystic?" Unfortunately one of the many disservices St. Herman's Press has done to American Orthodoxy has been to refer to recent Russian saints and Fathers as "Mystics". and "Prophets." It is really a concept that does not fit into Orthodox ethos at all, for Western spirituality, especially that of the Spanish Mystics, which were quite severe in their approach, and in the case of Teresa de Avila, highly intellectual. Keep in mind that it was a Spanish nobleman, Dominic de Guzman and founder of the Dominicans who was the Father of the Inquisition. Even his mother said that when he was born, she sense that she had given birth to a child carrying something like a whip! As I said on another thread, what constitutes sanctity to the two Churches is as disparate as many seemingly common held beliefs.

Daniel, who is very well-read, has given you an excellent source, for the life of St. Gregory Palamas is really the concise history of hesychasm in the Orthodox Church, which was fiercely opposed, causing St. Gregory to suffer greatly at the hands of his opponents. It is the key to Orthodox monastic life.

If I may, I would strongly advise against trying to see one form of spiritual approach in the light of the another, for all it will cause will be for you to have an incomplete view of each, and a totally convoluted idea of both. If you want to study Catholic Mystics fine. If you want to read Orthodox lives of saints, fine. But they are not the same. Don't play with fire, you could get very badly burned. Orthodoxy is not something to be "studied," but to be lived.

Fr. A.

[Teo Kia Choong]

Dear Father Averky,

I do apologise if I have caused any sensitivities which do not accurately present the point that I wanted to put forth. Actually, I spoke mainly from the position and understanding that John Cassian set up monastic communities in the south of France, and yet, he was recognized as the father of monasticism by many both in the East and West. Or am I wrong here?

[Fr John Wehling]

Teo (is this the proper way to address you?),

Glory to Jesus Christ!

St John Cassian is considered by many to be the Father who introduced Eastern monasticism into the West, the south of France to be specific. He traveled throughout the monasteries of the East and sat at the feet of holy monks, recording their wisdom, and then later traveled to Gaul/France, where he founded monasteries. Ironically, he was never canonized in the West and was suspect because he held an Eastern (read: Orthodox) view of grace and human freedom, aka synergy, which put him at odds with Augustine's predestinarianism. His writings had a major impact on St Benedict of Nursia (much loved in the West and rightly honored for organizing monasticism there), who is also revered in the East (St Gregory Palamas, already mentioned in regards to hesychasm, calls St Benedict "one of the most perfect"). St John's works are very beneficial, particularly his Conferences. His feast in the Orthodox Church is Feb. 29.

In short, he is not really a founder of monasticism in the East as much as a transmitter of Eastern Orthodox monasticism to the West.

Hope this helps,
Fr John

[Richard Leigh]

Hello everyone,

Ihope you don'tmind my dropping in like this. My nose is always sensitive to terminological "problems" the main problem being that we of the west learned our vocabulary (i.e., the words) from ye of the east but without "eastern content." Thus what is mystical for one does not amount to what is mystical for the other.

I have a book called The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1991 (but it has a long hiestory of publication and translation dating from the original French edition in 1944). He says in the second paragraph of the first page:
<blockquote>In a certain sense all theology is mystical, inasmuch as it shows forth the divine mystery: the data of revelation. On the other hand, mysticism is frequently opposed to theology as a realm inaccessible to understanding, as an unutterable mystery, a hidden depth, to be lived rather than known...</blockquote>

Mysticism in the Western sense is at least patly defined in essence as &#34;...that that is most spritiual which is most removed from the material and the bodily.&#34; &#40; The Westministe Dictionaly of Christian Ethics.

But the word &#34;mystical&#34; comes from the word &#34;mystery&#34; which is glossed &#40;covered with a word&#41; with &#34;sacrament&#34; by whicih the Church means, among other things how the Spiritual is given through &/or by means of physical realities, so, not like the western idea of the word at all.

Anyway, just trying to help.

Yours,

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Teo Kia Choong,

I am sorry that I did not answer. Fr. John has given you the correct answer. Thank you, Father.


Dear Richard,

I can heartily agree with what you have pointed out in Lossky&#39;s writings, but Fr. Herman used the word in a sense akin to an &#34;Eastern Mystic,&#34; and we do not regard saints in that manner.

Thank you for the information.

Fr. A.

[Adam]

Dear father Averky! I am very close to the franciscan spirituality, being a RC priest and a member of the Secular Franciscan Order. In one of your posts You have wriiten than the franciscan spirituality is unacceptable from the Orthodox point of view. Forgive me ,Father, but St. Francis grounded his spirituality on the Gospel only. There was no other authority in this area for him but only Our Lord . As far ,as I know, of course. Could You explaine to me what wrong and unorthodox, His love to papacy not including, in his spirituality is? With regards:
Fr Adam , sinner

[Waldemar]

A Comparison of the Mysticism of Francis of Assisi With That of St. Seraphim of Sarov
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/st_francis_st_seraphim.htm

Originally printed in Synaxis: Orthodox Christian Theology in the 20th Century, Vol. 2, pp. 39-56

[Waldemar]

"'When Francis was caught up to heaven,' says a writer of his life*, 'God the Father on seeing him, was for a moment in doubt as to whom to give the preference, to His Son by nature or His son by grace - Francis.' What can be more frightful or madder than this blasphemy, what can be sadder than this delusion!"

* Life of Francis of Assisi. "The greatest saint is only a brand snatched from the fire. Apart from Christ, God sees nothing good in him (1 Cor. 1:30))."

- St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (The Arena, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1997, p.40)

[Archbishop Constantin]

I have not found, any saint in any of the Synaxarions of the Orthodox Church, named "Saint Francis of Asisi". I have heard of a man named so, but I deemed it un-necessary to bother with those outside our Church, when we have a treasury of Saints, Confessors, Fathers etc. in our Holy Orthodox Church that is bursting at the seems. All of those people were under the influence of the Greek Philosophers accepting their teachings as truth, where our our Fathers have used the methods of the Greek Philosophers to define our Christianity. In addition, the above people were proponents of the heretical additons of Rome by their Popes. See the instructions of saint Basil the Great about how to read the Greek Philosophers. If you don't have it, it appeared in a site called "Eastern Orthodoxy" amd I have it in my files. I am sure that Bishop John Casian would not mind it, but we will obtain permision before we trasmit it.

+ Archbishop Constantin

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Waldemar and others,

I have encountered this article before, as well. I&#39;ve not had time or occassion to look deeply into its details -- i.e. quotations, references, accuracy of presentation, etc. -- so cannot speak to how far a personal bias might &#40;or might well not&#41; influence it; but it is certainly provocative. I must print out a few of the more potent quotations and pose them to a Franciscan Roman Catholic acquaintance of mine, as it would be interesting to note how those who place themselves in the tradition and heritage of Francis approach such things.

INXC, Matthew

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

But, Waldemar, surely this aberration is to be laid at the door of the misguided hagiographer rather than with St Francis? How would you justify any condemnation of the man himself from a few ill-chosen words written about him, probably without his knowledge or consent?


the seeker

[Daniel Jeandet]

Poor Francis, I wonder if he realised he would become so annoying?

[Waldemar]

Dear M A J-R,

I&#39;m not justifying anything.

I&#39;ve got an illustrated children&#39;s hagiography of St. Francis on my bookshelf &#40;by Tomie DiPaola&#41; but it doesn&#39;t say anything about the quality of his mystical beliefs and practices, so the only &#34;study&#34; of Franciscan spirituality that I have is from the two Orthodox sources that I&#39;ve cited.

Aside from a children&#39;s book and the Orthodox polemical discussions on Franciscan spirituality, my knowledge of Francis of Assisi is literally of the garden variety. I see Francis birdbath/feeder statues in a lot of gardens and have a vague memory of hearing something about him &#34;preaching to God&#39;s creatures, the little birds.&#34;

I look forward to Matthew&#39;s input after his discussion with his Franciscan friend.

[Catholic]

Dear M. A. Jackson-Roberts:
I appreciate your having written what you did.
It is never a nice thing to see anyone&#39;s name nor an entire religious order&#39;s name sullied in a public domain.

[Miguel Coalesco]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Greetings all

I just dropped in because the of the reputation of this board as a place to get the right answers to questions about Orthodox spirituality.

I see in Teo&#39;s original post two questions. One concerning the struggle between Barlaam and Gregory Palamas in the Hesychast controversy. Now clearly it was a major crises in the east and the issue wasn&#39;t decided for a long time, my thanks to Daniel J who very nicely recommended a book.

I would like to know more about it myself. I pray the Jesus prayer often. I do not use any special posture and I have not really internalized the prayer in the manner of some of revered saints. Does anyone here today follow the practices advocated and defended by Gregory Palamas? Or has the whole procedure passed out of general use? I would love to hear some comments from modern practitioners of Hesychasm. My suspicion is that it is much too difficult a persuit for most laypeople in modern society.

Secondly, I do not doubt that Orthodox spirituality needs to be lived to be understood, my question would be, did John of the Cross live it? Concerning the relationship between the spirituality of John of the Cross and Theosis &#40;an excellent question!&#41; it is known that the Carmelite order had it&#39;s origins in Palestine. For that reason they &#40;as a group&#41; were met with suspicion and hostility in the west. It is very likely that the spirituality of John of the Cross is derived to a great extent from the early Palestinian Greek Carmelites, I have often wondered about this myself and the question merits some discussion. This would push the introduction of eastern spirituality back &#40;in the Carmelite tradition&#41; almost 600 years from Cassian&#39;s day. I hope there are others here who would be familiar with these issues.

Peace to all,

[M.C. Steenberg]

In a recent post, Miguel wrote:


I would like to know more about it myself. I pray the Jesus prayer often. I do not use any special posture and I have not really internalized the prayer in the manner of some of revered saints. Does anyone here today follow the practices advocated and defended by Gregory Palamas? Or has the whole procedure passed out of general use? I would love to hear some comments from modern practitioners of Hesychasm. My suspicion is that it is much too difficult a persuit for most laypeople in modern society.

First of all, welcome to this community. It is always nice to see a new 'face' among the ranks.

Your question regarding the method of prayer defended by St Gregory Palamas and his heritage is interesting. It is worth noting immediately that it was not, as the wording of your post does appear to assume, ever a practice in 'general use'. While contemplative prayer has always been widespread in Orthodoxy, from its earliest days and among both clergy as well as monastics and laity, the specific practice of integrating contemplative prayer with physical postures, breathing techniques and other such elements has never been widespread. Indeed, it was the fact that it was so unusual that at first caused the opponants of Palamas to speak out. 'Surely this is not how we are to pray', was the heart of their reaction.

As much as it has ever been present in the Church, such practices have been reserved for those of extremely advanced spiritual development. It is not that there is something 'better' about such prayer that those who are less advanced are 'unworthy' to experience; rather, it is simply the case that there is a huge realm of risk and danger, as the Fathers would have it, in the application of such techniques without guidance and a certain level of maturity that might help one from falling prey to deception and misfocus in his or her life of prayer. You will note, if you read through the patristic literature which deals with such manners and methods of prayer, that there is a nearly constant warning given against the application of such methods by any such person as is not in a close, dedicated, obedient and strict relationship with an experienced and holy spiritual father. In truth, even on the Holy Mountain, where there is a high concentration of such experienced elders and fathers, this type of practice is extremely rare. The majority of abbots in the main monastaries repeat the same warning to their own monks: there is a danger here. Beware. Better to pray without such methods than to fall danger to the traps that they pose.

What are these traps and dangers? Essentially, the notion that prayer should or must be combined with a specific physico-mental 'technique' poses the great risk of causing us to misunderstand the whole nature of prayer itself. Prayer is communion with God. If we associate it with a specific manner of sitting, or of breathing (as examples), we risk compartmentalising prayer to an activity that we do from time to time (even if very often), rather than learning to express and experience it as a whole life in union with the Trinity. We also risk coming to consider prayer, and thus our communion with God, as subjected to specific methods of practice: God will hear us always and we may hear him always, but we'll really hear each other when seated with our chins on our chest and our breath united to our words. This is, of course, a myth. While we may never outwardly say that we believe prayer to be dependent on method, the practice of such techniques without proper guidance and supervision can --and very often does-- lead our subconcious into precisely this trap.

INXC, Matthew

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

What I should have added, Waldemar, is that St Frances &#40;who was really a Holy Fool of the Western church&#41; was swept aside almost as soon as his ideas had been accepted as free of heresy by Pope Innocent III and a religious Order bearing his name was then created by Brother Elias and other ambitious souls, largely, I suspect, as a counter-measure to the growing popularity of the recently-founded Dominicans. This Order did not match Frances&#39;s own wishes, hence his relegation to irrelevance. In subsequent years the Franciscans split at least two ways &#40;Observants and Conventuals&#41; and heaped vituperative calumny upon each other; very unedifying.

BTW, it appears from the internet that Franciscans are behind much of the growth in Byzantine Catholic practices. No wonder they are not much beloved in certain circles - Anglican, as well as Orthodox, as I can attest from personal hearsay.

J R H Moorman is a leading authority on the Friars, if you are interested in following up the story.

the seeker

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

PS apologies and a corrigendum to my last post: for Frances please read Francis. Whatever else he may have been, female he most certainly was not.

the seeker

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

PPS another good account of friars, including the Friars Minor &#40;viz Franciscans&#41; is to be found in C H Lawrence&#39;s book entitled &#34;The Friars&#34;.

Incidentally, the several branches of the OFMs ended up by condemning each other to the stake for imputed heresy during the medieval period. Thankfully, the contemporary worldwide Anglican community does not now have that remedy available to it.

the seeker

[Owen Jones]

Here are some interesting statements from the new Pope:


&#34;. . . .Virginity and periodic abstinence from food are meant to
testify that eternal life awaits us, indeed that it is already
among us, and &#39;the form of this world passes away&#39; &#40;I Cor 7: 31&#41;.
Without virginity and without fasting the Church is no longer
Church, she is assimilated to her historical surroundings. This
is why we must look to the example of our brethren of the Eastern
Orthodox churches, great teachers — even today—of authentic
Christian asceticism.&#34; Ignatius, 1986 &#40;Paper&#41;, p 114.

&#34;. . . .But in too much of the contemporary theological
production there is an insufficient understanding of spiritual
interiority. Its global and irrevocable condemnation of the _fuga
seculi _&#40;flight from the world&#41;, which is at the center of
classic spirituality, failed to perceive that there was also a
social aspect to that &#39;flight&#39;. One fled the world, not to
abandon it to itself, but in order to find in places of
recollection new possibilities of Christian and, therefore, human
existence. One acquired a clear perception of the alienation of
society, and in the hermitages and in the monasteries new social
models based on new foundations were tested. Oases of true life
arose in the desert; one gathered fresh hope for the salvation of
all.

&#34;Just consider: twenty years ago it was declared in sundry tones
that the most pressing problem of the Catholic was to find a
spirituality that was &#39;new&#39;, &#39;communitarian&#39;, &#39;open&#39;, &#39;non-
sacral&#39;, &#39;turned toward the world&#39;. Now after long wanderings it
is being discovered that the urgent task is to find again a
connecting link with the ancient spirituality of &#39;flight from the
world&#39;.

&#34;[The problem] is once more that of finding a new equilibrium.
Apart from the legitimate, indeed, for the Church, precious
monastic or eremitic vocations, the believer is held to live that
none-too-easy balance between a proper incarnation in history and
the indispensable tension toward eternity. It is precisely this
balance that prevents one from either sacralizing earthly
commitment or laying oneself open to the reproach of
&#39;alienation&#39;.&#34; Id. pp 116-117.

[Marie-Duquette]

Owen,

Why do you place these &#34;statements&#34; of the new Pope Benedict XVI on this &#34;thread&#34; which is almost two full years past?

With you I believe that the statements are not only &#34;interesting&#34;, but quite &#34;pithy&#34;, going right to the heart of the matter of Christian Life.

Interiority! desert spirituality! monastic or eremitic vocations! and return to searching out &#34;the connecting link with &#34;ancient spirituality&#34; and flight from the world!

&#34;oases or true life arose in the desert?&#34; I saw this with my own eyes at the Elder Ephrem&#39;s St. Anthyny&#39;s Monastery: an Oasis arising in the desert of Arizona where the spiritually thirsty pilgrims of this alienated world of our are finding &#34;Living Water&#34; to quench their thirst . Owen, may I ask, where did you find these quotes of the new Pope Benedict XVI?

Hope this &#34;thread&#34; continues!! Our modern world is in dire need of &#34;INTERIORITY&#34; or Hesychia!

marie_duquette

[Marie-Duquette]

Owen,

Forgot a most important point in the first paragraph: &#34; ... without virginity and fasting the Church is no longer Church ...&#34; powerful words and very challenging, also!

Yes, more and more do we all need to seriously study and pray the ancient spirituality of &#34;flight from the world&#34;! I have been personally doing so ... with much struggle; and with much love of Christ Jesus and the Early Mothers and Fathers of the Desert who showed us
the WAY to live in this alienating world, being in it, yet, not of it!

marie-duquette

[Owen Jones]

if you might be looking for something else, go to the site of the Theological Consortium of Greater Columbus and search the author list for Ratzinger

[Marie-Duquette]

Owen,

Thanks for responding to my post

With due respect, you didn&#39;t answer my question concerning your opening sentence:

&#34; ... some interesting statements from the new pope.&#34;

Why would you quote these particular statements of the new Pope?

Are we as Orthodox Christians to pay attention to these statements quoted by you?

Thank you,

marie_duquette

[Ken McRae]

Having glanced quickly at this thread, there are a few misconceptions I wish to to address. I will start first with the Catholic use of the word &#39;mystic&#39; or &#39;mysticism&#39;: I have posted below a section from a Catholic treatise on spiritual &#40;mystical&#41; theology, by Fr Jordan Aumann, which provides a useful summary of the Catholic understanding and application of the term&#40;s&#41;. There are others as good or better which I will try to hunt down and post, as I think it is important for Orthodox Christians to be able to source their views and opinions. I have only been a member here a few short months, but have noticed no shortage of opinions about Catholicism, very few of them supported or backed-up with direct word-for-word quotes from Catholic texts. In &#34;academia&#34;, this is regarded as intellectual dishonesty. Opinions are far more persuasive when documented or well grounded.

At any rate, before turning you loose on Fr Jordan&#39;s treatment of the Catholic use of the terms &#39;mystical&#39; and &#39;mysticism&#39;, I wish to say a few words myself on my own use of the term &#39;mystic&#39;. In Catholicism, the term saint is generally, or mainly applied to those who have achieved purity of heart, mind, and body; and have been sealed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. However, it is not denied in Catholicism that there is a broader sense in which the term saint can be applied to all members of the Body of Christ, as Scripture clearly evinces. All who truly repent of their sins and struggle, in the strength of Christ, for heart purity, all saints, to a greater or lesser degree. In a similar manner, while Catholicism acknowledges that there is a legitimate sense in which the term &#39;mystic&#39; applies to all who are in Christ, it is more specifically and narrowly applied to that class of persons who have not only lived the contemplative life, but have done so in the highest and truest sense of the term, having attained onto the pure vision of God.

Fr. Jordan points out below that there is a close relationship between the the term &#39;gnostic&#39;, as employed by the Fathers in a purely Christian sense, and the term &#39;mystic&#39; as applied in a Catholic sense. With that, I will turn you now over to Fr Jordan:-


Nature and Scope of Spiritual Theology (http://www.op.org/domcentral/study/aumann/st/st01.htm#terminology)

by Fr Jordan Aumann

Although treatises on the spiritual life can be found in the writings of the earliest theologians and Fathers of the Church, spiritual theology did not emerge as a distinct and well-defined branch of sacred doctrine until the eighteenth century. Traditionally, sacred doctrine possessed a remarkable unity that was at once the test of doctrinal orthodoxy and a sign of authentic theology -- the science that studies God and all things in relation to God.
However, by the time of the Council of Trent &#40;1545-1563&#41;, the attacks of heresy and the changing political, cultural, and religious conditions made it necessary for theologians to investigate the truths of faith more deeply. The result was that sacred doctrine gradually became more diversified, and was ultimately divided into areas of specialization or distinct branches of the one theology.

Terminology

What is now called spiritual theology has been designated by various names throughout the history of theology. Some have called it simply spirituality; others have named it spiritual life; devout life; supernatural life; interior life; mystical evolution; and theology of Christian perfection. The terms first used and still commonly used to designate the systematic theology of the spiritual life are ascetical theology and mystical theology, although these words do not have the same meaning for all theologians.

The word ascetical comes from the Greek askeein, meaning to practice or exercise in order to acquire a skill, especially an athletic skill. Later the word came to mean the study of philosophy or the practice of virtue, and it was used in this sense by Greek philosophers. St. Paul uses the word only once, in Acts 24:16, but he frequently draws the comparison between the practices of the Christian life and athletic exercises &#40;1 Cor. 9:24-27; Phil. 3:13-14; 2 Tim. 4:28; gimnazein in 1 Tim. 4:7-8, Heb. 5:14, and 12:11 designates spiritual striving&#41;. Among the early Christians the name ascetics was given to those who observed continence under the vow of chastity, from which it was ultimately applied to the practices of the monastic life. It seems that a Polish Franciscan named Dobrosielski introduced the word ascetical into the Latin usage of western theology in 1655, and between 1752 and 1754 the Italian Jesuit Scaramelli used the term in contradistinction to the older word mystical.

The term mystical, also from the Greek &#40;mystikos&#41;, originally referred to secret or hidden rites known only to the initiated. The noun mysterion is used in the Book of Daniel and also in the Deuterocanonical books; in the New Testament it is used by St. Paul to signify a secret of God pertaining to man&#39;s salvation, the hidden or symbolic sense of a narration, or anything whose activity or power is hidden. The adjective mystical is not found in the New Testament or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers; it was introduced only in the third century, and with the passage of time it assumed three meanings: liturgically, it referred to religious cult; exegetically, it signified an allegorical or a typical interpretation of Scripture as distinct from the literal sense; theologically, it meant a more profound knowledge of the truths of faith -- knowledge not shared by all.

In the fourth century the expression mystical theology is found in the writings of Marcellus Ancyranus; in the fifth century, in the writings of Marcus Eremita; and the expression was introduced into western theology at the beginning of the sixth century by the PseudoDionysius, author of De mystica theologia. By this time the word mystical designated not only the superior and deeper knowledge formerly known as gnosis but also an experiential, intuitive knowledge of the divine. Gradually the word was identified with contemplation, and treatises on the subject tended to become more abstract and scientific.

John Gerson &#40;1363-1429&#41;, chancellor of the University of Paris, made a further distinction in his treatise, On Mystical Theology, Speculative and Practical, and speculative mystical theology was extended to include the whole theology of the spiritual life, from first conversion to the full experience of the mystical life. Early in the 1750s Scaramelli introduced the distinction between ascetical and mystical theology, and the latter was again restricted to the study of contemplation and the extraordinary mystical graces. In modern times two Dominicans, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and John Arintero, defended and restored the traditional teaching: there is but one path to Christian perfection, though it admits of ascetical and mystical stages, and the mystical life is not the result of extraordinary graces but the normal development and perfection of the grace received by every Christian at baptism. Vatican Council II made this same doctrine its own when it stated:

The Lord Jesus, divine teacher and model of all perfection, preached holiness of life &#40;of which he is the author and maker&#41; to each and every one of his disciples without distinction: &#34;In a word, you must be made perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect&#34; &#40;Matt. 5:48&#41;. For he sent the Holy Spirit to all to move them interiorly to love God with their whole heart, with their whole soul, with their whole understanding, and with their whole strength &#40;cf. Mark 12:30&#41;, and to love one another as Christ loved them &#40;cf. John 13:34; 15:12&#41; .... It is therefore quite clear that all Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of love .... The forms and tasks of life are many but holiness is one -- that sanctity which is cultivated by all who act under God&#39;s Spirit and, obeying the Father&#39;s voice and adoring God the Father in spirit and in truth, follow Christ, poor, humble and cross-bearing, that they may deserve to be partakers of his glory.&#40;1&#41;

In view of the historical development of the terminology, it is not surprising that modern theologians do not agree on the meaning of the words ascetical and mystical. All the more reason, then, for students of ascetico-mystical theology to familiarize themselves with the variations in vocabulary before attempting to evaluate an author&#39;s teaching.

Modern authors will usually fall into one of the following categories in their use of the words ascetical and mystical:

1. The terms are convertible, and either one can be used to designate the entire field of spiritual theology.

2. Ascetical theology studies the spiritual life from its beginning to the threshold of infused contemplation; mystical theology treats the stages of infused contemplation, passive purgation, and the transforming union.

3. Ascetical theology investigates the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways so far as ordinary grace is the operative principle in each; mystical theology is restricted to infused contemplation as an effect of extraordinary grace and to the epiphenomena that sometimes accompany infused contemplation.

4. Ascetical theology treats of the purgative and illuminative ways; mystical theology studies the unitive way.

5. The distinction between the ascetical and the mystical aspects of the spiritual life is determined by the predominance of the acquired and infused virtues &#40;ascetical theology&#41; or the predominance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit &#40;mystical theology&#41;.

Other theologians, fundamentally in agreement with this teaching, distinguish between the activity and passivity of the soul so far as it operates under grace and the virtues &#40;ascetical&#41; or under the movement of the Holy Spirit through his gifts &#40;mystical&#41;.

6. In Protestant theology the word asceticism usually refers to the practices of mortification and self-denial; mysticism signifies any experiential knowledge of suprasensible things, including occultism,, spiritualism, religious ecstasy, and extraordinary psychic phenomena. Many contemporary Protestant theologians reject the terms ascetical and mystical and prefer to speak of piety, pietism, or Christian lifestyle.

Because of the discrepancies in the use of the terms ascetical and mystical, there is no universally accepted name for the theology of Christian perfection. We prefer the succinct title, spiritual theology. It has the advantage of including both the ascetical and the mystical elements of the Christian life without implying an exaggerated dichotomy between the two.

Moreover, it emphasizes the fundamental unity of the spiritual life, which culminates in the same perfection for all; it signifies that this perfection is a spiritual or supernatural perfection; and it classifies the theology of Christian holiness as a branch or specialization of theology.

The distinction between the ascetical and the mystical is not without foundation on the existential level, for at any given moment in the spiritual life the ascetical or the mystical aspect will predominate, and therefore it is perfectly legitimate to isolate one from the other for the purposes of investigation. However, the total view, of the spiritual life should always embrace both aspects, since mysticism cannot be understood -- much less experienced -- without a concomitant asceticism, and any authentic Christian asceticism contains within itself the seed of the mystical experience.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilius,

It is with some reluctance again that I write. I agree that "Opinions are far more persuasive when documented or well grounded." I hope that you don't think that most of the opinions here are misleading or from ignorance, that has not been my experience. There are some in the Latin Church that are very kind toward the Orthodox Catholic Church, thanks be to God you are among the kind. The text depends on the time it was written and the purpose behind the writing as usual. The Catholic Encyclopedia for example puts forth an abundance of ignorance in some cases, particularly in regards to the Orthodox Church. People look to it as being somewhat accurate and a significant source for "Catholic" knowledge as they do to councils as well. Such published distortions by Latins can only come from a non-Orthodox perspective and a significant one at that. In "academia", this is regarded as intellectual dishonesty as well. The personality of Pope John Paul the II held the Orthodox Church in high regard, thanks be to God. Well, suffice it to say the Orthodox Church does not consider Fatima for instance to be one of the mystical "treasures" of the west. We have our differences there is no doubt in my mind or other Orthodox Christians of the past and present, you would have loved Father Averky! Saint Hesychios the Priest's perspective would no doubt differ from those that put forth the below text.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm

"The story of the system of mysticism... an obscure speculation, with the wildest form of mystic extravagance...

"The likeness of this process of auto-suggestion to that of fakirs, Sunnyasis...

"grossly magic practices of the later Hesychasts...

I don't know who the member is that you are referencing, but you will find most here to be very sincere and many are well educated, most importantly in honesty. It seems to me when foundations are poured theologically or philosophically human responses to those initiatives will result. Vatican II for instance conveys beliefs regarding Islam and other religions that simply is not in accordance with the understandings of the Orthodox Church. The actions of the Latin hierarchs that express those understandings are noticeable. In a recent academic setting a scholarly Cardinal at Georgetown University lead a prayer to Allah before King Abdullah II Bin Al Hussein of Jordan received his honorary degree. A message was conveyed as well. I mention this because rightly defining and dividing the word of God's Truth effects the understandings of those being lead. It seems to me that some of the idea's that you have referenced above from Vatican II are quite different than the understanding in the Orthodox Church, so are those found at the above link. It seems to me that perhaps new understandings are being re-adjusted as well as some of the faithful.

"A change in space, in architecture and in the placement of altars and other liturgical furnishings, has similar effect, as has a change in language, which carries and conditions our thinking and evaluating. A change in Liturgy changes the context of the Church's life. Recently, introducing the changes mandated by the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (third typical edition), I remarked that the changes were "minor". A lay woman of the Archdiocese of Chicago corrected me: "Cardinal, there are no minor changes in Liturgy". She is correct."

by Francis Cardinal George

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Ken McRae]

Matthew originally posted:-


"I agree that 'Opinions are far more persuasive when documented or well grounded.' I hope that you don't think that most of the opinions here are misleading or from ignorance, that has not been my experience." <<>> "I don't know who the member is that you are referencing, but you will find most here to be very sincere and many are well educated, most importantly in honesty."

Reply:-

Dear Matthew,

Forgive me, please, for employing such a rough expression as "intellectual dishonesty". No offense was intended by such words. Monachos members who have successfully completed Secondary school, and graduated to "higher" education will understand that the expression in question implies that one has arrived at conclusions not sufficiently supported by one's research and documentation.

For example, when a person writes a Ph'D thesis at university, a panel of experts (doctors) in that particular discipline will be assembled, and the author of the thesis will appear before this panel. The panel's objective is to try and prove the thesis is unworthy of the Ph'D degree, and its author must defend and prove its merit. Every proposition will be thoroughly scrutinized, and if the panel judges the thesis as vitiated by "intellectual dishonesty", which is to say, that it is insufficiently supported by clear evidence (documentation), and convincing argumentation, a doctorate will not be awarded.

Let me be clear, though: this does not mean that the propositions presented in the thesis were necessarily incorrect or insupportable, but only that the applicant failed to effectively make or prove his or her case, sometimes because of inadequate documentation and illogical reasoning. Applying this criteria to the opinions on Catholicism, expressed at Monachos, I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong, so much as that many of them have not been sufficiently supported by convincing evidence and argumentation.

In my limited experience with Orthodox writings and Christians, there seems to be those who believe, and are extremely reluctant to admit otherwise, that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have nothing in common. They will stop at nothing to try and show how foreign all Catholic beliefs and practices are to Orthodoxy. Fine, I say, if this is what they believe, so long as they can support it. But I have found such support is rarely forth-coming. This is not to say, that support has been presented, and I just judged it as inadequate or unconvincing, but that in many cases no support at all is presented. And so I, and others like myself are left scratching our heads in wonderment. I admit, though, that this is probably what Orthodox often experience as well coming from Catholics.

Remember, though, that I'm not talking now about those few critical points I feel the questioin of reunion ultimately boils down to, but all those other points that can be classified of a secondary importance, by comparison.

Contrary to appearances, I have a simple mind. That is to say, I try to simplify things as much as possible, though I don't always succeed at "keeping it simple". For me, the question of reunion or converting to Orthodoxy has always revolved around a half-a-dozen or so critical questions; and among those, the question of the papacy is pre-eminent; and it is where, I feel, the Orthodox make their strongest stand.

Differences in theological terminology are of relatively minor importance by comparison, as they've existed in the pre-schism Church as well; as will appear to anyone who has taken the time to read the patristic writings of both East and West. With regard to the term 'mystic', or 'mysticism', for example, I have posted the passage from Fr. Jordan to show that it is possible to reconcile it with Orthodox thinking. But, then again, it may be that I assume too much, on account of a deficiency in my own "intellectual" understanding of Orthodoxy.

Here is a passage, nontheless, from an Orthodox author, Fr Alexander Golitzin, in which he attempts to justify his own use of the term 'mysticism':-

The term 'mysticism', he says, "is of relatively recent coinage, dating from no earlier than seventeenth century France. When not used today in a perjorative sense, it serves to indicate the individual or 'subjective' experience of divine, or at least 'spiritual' realities. As such, and under the influence of the Enlightenment, and especially of Romantic exaltation of the individual, it normally stands in contradistinction to the 'institutional'. Perhaps this is especially the case here in America where our cult of the individual (together with our distrust of authority and traditional structures) runs very deep. 'Institutional religion' is a phrase that still carries a considerable freight of disdain. Yet the roots of our modern word do not favor this popular dichotomy. 'Mysticism' derives from the Greek term, mysterion, itself stemming perhaps (the origins are debated) from the verb, myo, meaning to close one's eyes. The adjective, 'mystical' ( mystikos ), in the ancient world meant simply 'hidden', 'secret' ... etc. (http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Liturgy.pdf)"

Now, though Fr. Golitzin's justification for the use of such term(s) may not be identical to Fr Jordan's, but I feel they share some common ground. Near the end of Fr Golitzin's essay, he proceeds to comment on the Christian adoption and use of the term 'gnostic', and in this connection, Origen's use of the term 'mystical'; all to prove that the terms 'mystic' and 'mystical' can be, (as I personally believe as well,) reconciled with Orthodoxy.

The term is frequently used in contemporary Orthodox writings, as Fr Averky implied by his remark(s). Two very well known books use the terms in their titles: 1) Vladimir Lossky's Mystical Theology, and 2) Russian Mystics - by Sergius Bolshakoff. Evidently, then, there are a considerable number of Orthodox who agree with Fr. Golitzin's viewpoint, as presented in the above essay, entitled:- " Liturgy and Mysticism: The Experience of God in Eastern Orthodox Christianity ".

Matthew originally posted:-


"You would have loved Father Averky! There are some in the Latin Church that are very kind toward the Orthodox Catholic Church ... The personality of Pope John Paul the II held the Orthodox Church in high regard, thanks be to God."

Reply:-

Fr Averky was, doubtless, a faithful servant and labourer in the Lord's vineyard, and it is my loss to have never corresponded with him before he reposed in the Lord. You say that there "are some in the Latin Church that are very kind toward the Orthodox Catholic Church," but I would go further than this and say there are many, if not the majority. In my experience, those who are "intellectually dishonest" in their view(s) of Orthodoxy, that is to say, entertain views of it unsupported by the facts, are few today, by comparision to earlier times.

Pope JP II embodied the spirit of Vatican II, and the vast majority of Catholics that trusted him have fully adopted his spirit toward the Eastern Orthodox. I am not an admirer of JP II, and cringe when I hear calls being made for his immediate beatification. Apart from his most 'traditional' views, for which he was fiercely hated by modernists, I was not impressed in the slightest by his pontificate, which I generally view as 'scandalous' in nature. The only thing about JP II that impressed me was his ecumenical attitude toward the Greek Church, but even this was vitiated by his reaching out to non-Christian religions as well. For example, there is a photo circulating on the Net of him bent over in an Islamic Mosque, kissing the Koran. Scandalous, I say!!

Benedict XVI, I believe, will be a type of JP III in the way he reaches out to the Orthodox Churches; and it's reported that he was vehemently opposed to the scandal of Assisi; so we may see his assume a harder line toward the non-Christian religions, but even this is unsure. No one is expecting him to make a radical break with the policies and practices of JP II, unless its in pursuit of a more traditional vision of the Church.

I understand the Orthodox resentment toward the policies of 'Uniatism', but I have gotten the impression from some questions and remarks made here, at Monachos, that many Orthodox are unaware of the official policy of 'Uniatism', that Orthodox Churches desiring reunion with Rome could do so without having to give up anything: they are permitted to continue believing and practicing as they have always done in the past. Mind you, I should qualify this by saying my own understanding of Uniate policies is not very strong, admittedly.

What can be deduced from such a policy? At the very least, we can deduce from it that Rome has always believed that her theology of the procession of the Holy Spirit can be reconciled with the Greek doctrine; and secondly, that no Pope or RC Council has ever anathematized the the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas and the Hesychasts. This is equally apparent from the article you referenced in the Catholic encyclopedia, which makes no mention of any papal encyclicals or RC Councils condemning 'hesychasm', and we can be sure that if such existed, the author(s) of the article would have not failed to quote them.

Again, that same article failed (neglected) to mention the fact that there are Catholic scholars who believe Thomism and Palamism can be reconciled. One Catholic attempt at this is a treatise entitled The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195124367/qid=1114371516/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5513609-2744700), by A. N. Williams. Whether or not this is an achievable goal, the spirit of those engaged in this noble effort reflects a clear and definite receptivity among many Catholics to the 'hesychastic' tradition(s) of the East.

Matthew originally posted:-


"The text depends on the time it was written and the purpose behind the writing as usual. The Catholic Encyclopedia for example puts forth an abundance of ignorance in some cases, particularly in regards to the Orthodox Church. People look to it as being somewhat accurate and a significant source for "Catholic" knowledge as they do to councils as well. Such published distortions by Latins can only come from a non-Orthodox perspective and a significant one at that. In "academia", this is regarded as intellectual dishonesty as well."

Reply:-

I do not disagree with your assessment of the Catholic encyclopedia, but rather heartily agree that many of the articles contained in it are vitiated by a type of "intellectual dishonesty"; that is to say, contain views not adequately supported by the facts. Some of these "distortions", as you call them, are accidental, but others are more sinister, to be sure, and do not reflect an irenical spirit toward the East. One must use discretion when consulting such a work, which is merely a theological reference tool, and nothing more. It is a grave error to accord it an authority which it does not possess. It was not written by saints, nor approved by any Catholic councils. Persons of reason, good-will, and spiritual discernment will most assuredly not accord it an authority equal to the writings of councils, fathers and saints.

I think you can see, that if such distortions of Orthodoxy exist among Catholics, as evinced by the article you referenced from the CE, on Hesychasm, similar distortions of Catholicism will equally exist among the Orthodox. However, in my previous post, I hesitated to call them such, but rather opted to refer to them as "opinions" not adequately defended. I stand ready to admit, though, that these opinions I refer to may, in fact, accord with the truth, but only that the convincing demonstration of such has been lacking, more often than not.

Matthew originally posted:-


"Well, suffice it to say the Orthodox Church does not consider Fatima for instance to be one of the mystical "treasures" of the west."

Reply:-

I can understand that, to some degree, as being a necessary ecclesiological position for the Orthodox to assume, especially for those who view Rome as not only schismatic, but even heretical. However, the Orthodox should realize that the events of Fatima, and the prophecies, have contributed significantly to the advent of the modern ecumenical movement, at least on Rome's side, and all the efforts toward reunion with the East, with a special focus on Russia.

Secondly, it is the opinion of many Catholic scholars and faithful that the third secret of Fatima, which was never fully disclosed, in my opinion, warns of a great apostacy that will take place in the Catholic Church, and they allege this apostacy will begin with the pope. Now, in my eyes, this is problematic for Catholics, in light of their dogma of papal infallibility. It seems to undermine papal infallibility, and the belief that Rome is incapable of apostacy.

Matthew originally posted:-


"We have our differences there is no doubt in my mind or other Orthodox Christians of the past and present. Saint Hesychios the Priest perspective would no doubt differ from ... the below text(s):-

"The story of the system of mysticism... an obscure speculation, with the wildest form of mystic extravagance ... The likeness of this process of auto-suggestion to that of fakirs, Sunnyasis ... grossly magic practices of the later Hesychasts ... etc." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm)

Reply:-

No one has denied that, not even myself, that there are obvious differences. What I have contended is the viewpoint or opinion held by some Orthodox that there is no common ground between the two; or that the things that divide the two camps far outweigh in number the things that unite them. As I said, for me the question of reunion is boiled down to a handful of points, but there are those among the Orthodox who clearly reject this vision, insisting that the Catholic ethos is so foreign to the Orthodox, that reunion is a virtual impossibility, and thus a sinful fantasy that no good Orthodox ought to entertainm for a moment. Hardly can a Catholic point out some common ground, without some Orthodox quickly countering with their opinion that such only appears like common ground, and that when carefully scrutinized, the utterly foreign spirit and practice of Catholicism will readily emerge. Differences there are, and always will be, even in the event that reunion is realized some day. Let us, I pray, remember that this was the experience of the ancient Church as well!!

With regard to the article on Hesychasm, I completely agree with your assessment of those passages you cite from it, that they are, indeed, a "partisan" distortion and caricature of Orthodox spirituality. It's precisely this kind of obstinate blindness that has continuously obstructed the path of reunion, in the past. Here are some other quotes from the article, which merit our brief examination and careful discretion:-

1 - "Hesychasts (hesychastes -- quietist) ... defended the theory that it is possible by an elaborate system of asceticism, detachment from earthly cares, submission to an approved master, prayer, especially perfect repose of body and will, etc." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm)

2 - "There was a regular process for seeing the uncreated light; the body was to be held immovable for a long time ... etc." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm)

3 - "Hesychasm then contains two elements, the belief that quietist contemplation is the highest occupation for men ... etc." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm)

4 - " ... many Greek Fathers and theologians had maintained that knowledge of God can be obtained by purity of soul and prayer better than by study." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm)

First, the article equates hesychasm with the quietistic spirituality that was condemned in the Catholic Church, during the 17th century, but merely assumes this as fact, and does not spill a single drop of ink to support this with clear and convincing documentation. I regard that as "intellectual dishonesty" of the worst kind. Secondly, the article seems to imply in the above statements that Catholic spirituality (mysticism) does not teach "an elaborate system of asceticism, detachment from earthly cares, submission to an approved master, prayer, especially perfect repose of body and will." Such an impression is completely false and misleading. The contemplative life, in silence and stillness, (as typified, for example, in the gospel account of Mary and Martha,) has always been esteemed in the Latin West has the highest occupation of man. Thirdly, the article imples that the Latin Fathers, (and medieval saints,) did *not* believe "that knowledge of God can be obtained by purity of soul and prayer better than by study."} Completely false again!! One need only read the selection of texts from the 14th century Catholic priest, Fr John Tauler, which I posted in the 'River of Fire thread' (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/19584.html?1112812878), to see the ignorance of this article concerning even Catholic spirituality. If I have time later, I will add to this post another selection of texts, from different authors, but to support to posted from Fr Tauler.

Matthew originally posted:-


"It seems to me when foundations are poured theologically or philosophically human responses to those initiative will result. Vatican II for instance conveys beliefs regarding Islam and other religions that simply is not in accordance with the understandings of the Orthodox Church."

Reply:-

Nor are they in accordance with the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Catholicism. As I have stated elsewhere, this is one major reason why I find presently myself on the narrow path that leads to Orthodoxy.

Matthew originally posted:-


The actions of the Latin hierarchs that express those understandings are noticeable. In an academic setting a scholarly Cardinal at Georgetown University lead a prayer to Allah, before King Abdullah II Bin Al Hussein of Jordan received his honorary degree. A message was conveyed as well. I mention this because rightly defining and dividing the word of God's Truth effects the understandings of those being lead."

Reply:-

You are quite correct to criticise this type of behaviour, and I'm with you entirely. The mere mention of such things turns my stomach and makes me want to cry a river of bitter tears!! Matthew originally posted:-


"It seems to me that some of the idea's that you have referenced above from Vatican II are quite different than the understanding in the Orthodox Church, so are those found at this link. It seems to me that perhaps new understandings are being re-adjusted as well as some of the faithful."

Reply:-

I'm sorry, Matthew, but you have lost me here, with this remark. I referenced one passage from a treatise on catholic spirituality. Do not misconstrue that as though I supported everything Fr Jordan teaches in his book. To the contrary: I'm sure there are plenty of passages in his work that I would not agree with, at least without some serious qualification. If you are referring specifically to the passage I posted, then I'd like you to elaborate or specify the ideas in question; when you have time.

Matthew originally posted:-


"A change in space, in architecture and in the placement of altars and other liturgical furnishings, has similar effect, as has a change in language, which carries and conditions our thinking and evaluating. A change in Liturgy changes the context of the Church's life. Recently, introducing the changes mandated by the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (third typical edition), I remarked that the changes were "minor". A lay woman of the Archdiocese of Chicago corrected me: "Cardinal, there are no minor changes in Liturgy". She is correct." ( by Francis Cardinal George)

I completely agree with this assessment. Again, as I have elsewhere stated, Vatican II destroyed the catholic liturgy, and in so doing, changed the "Catholic" faith, and severed the only link that most Catholic faithful will ever have with the ancient tradition of the Church. Do not misunderstand where I am coming from: Vatican II, in my experience and judgment, was and is a complete travesty, which has caused me great personal suffering and inner turmoil.

in humility,
Theophilus

[Ken McRae]

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO: Second Vatican Council - the Decree on Ecumenism (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ECUM.HTM)

1- &#34;Catholics therefore are earnestly recommended to avail themselves of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Fathers which lift up the whole man to the contemplation of the divine.&#34; (http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/sayings.html)

2 - &#34;The very rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches should be known, venerated, preserved and cherished by all. They must recognize that this is of supreme importance for the faithful preservation of the fullness of Christian tradition ... &#34; (http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/sayings.html)

For me, these words represent the very best side of Vatican II and hold forth the hope that post-Conciliar &#34;contemporary&#34; Catholicism will ditch its &#34;abomination of desolation,&#34; someday, that is to say, its &#39;New Mass&#39; and Neo-Protestant minimalism, for a full-scale return to the ancient patristic liturgical rite of the Latin Mass. The theological vision of Orthodoxy as depicted in these two brief conciliar statements, &#40;which I&#39;ve posted above,&#41; is that which has been deeply impressed upon the contemporary Catholic mind and conscience during the past four decades. It is not diluted or vitiated in any way, as I see it, by the daring &#34;innovation&#34; which the Council clearly and very boldly demonstrated in so many of its other conciliar acts and decrees; but signifies, rather, the ancient faith of the holy fathers.

On a personal note, when I dare to &#34;envision&#34; a reunion between East and West, it is, of course, one without any &#34;innovations&#34;. Such a union is, admittedly, not easy for me to envision, so it is perhaps better to describe it more as &#34;wishful-thinking&#34; than anything else.

in humility,
Theophilus

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilus,

I think one of the problems is how things are interpreted. I don&#39;t know how accurate it is to mention that the Vatican II references had been deeply impressed upon the contemporary Catholic mind. I suspect some would see things that way but not most. I recall last year I was watching EWTN and during the feast of the Nativity the monks I think they had been Franciscans brought out a birthday cake with one candle and told the audience that it is Christmas and we should all do something special, they began to sing Happy Birthday to Jesus and told others to do the same thing at home. They also suggested putting a stocking with Jesus&#39; name on the tree etc., following the spirit of Vatican II. Suffice it to say it was an adult audience. I sat there shaking my head insofar as such instruction didn&#39;t come close to conveying the Orthodox Patristic understanding of the 2nd person of the Trinity. So much has been reduced except the papacy, however the papacy and the Latins have reduced much. Even in doctrines like the Immaculate Conception when attempting to promote or preserve the place of the Theotokas it ends up being a reduction with unavoidable Christological disturbances or ramifications particularly from an Orthodox perspective. It seems to me that the spirit that places one Bishop in a singular position will make way for such things to happen within that Bishops see.

Even when we read the Latin ideas found in Holy writ or Patristic text that are issued to support the papacy we often find that such notions are at great odds with the Orthodox understandings of humility, hence their rejection. Sheep, lambs and the keys are redefined to support the papacy and children are still denied the Eucharist for around 1000 years now. As you know there are many issues that pre-date Vatican. Sooner or latter if spiritual matters are put to the grind stone nerves get hit, and I think that is what has been happening to some of our Latin friends in the past. I know it happened to a dear friend of mine who became Orthodox and would have lived the remainder of his short life in no other way. I was thinking about the text that is often sited for support of the papacy and I would like to share some thoughts.

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, &#34;Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?&#34; He said to Him, &#34;Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.&#34; He said to him, &#34;Tend My lambs.&#34; He said to him again a second time, &#34;Simon, son of John, do you love Me?&#34; He said to Him, &#34;Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.&#34; He said to him, &#34;Shepherd My sheep.&#34; He said to him the third time, &#34;Simon, son of John, do you love Me?&#34; Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, &#34;Do you love Me?&#34; And he said to Him, &#34;Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.&#34; Jesus said to him, &#34;Tend My sheep. John 21:15-17

Peter had denied the Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ three times, hence three times HE who searches our hearts and affections, and clearly foreknows the secrets of men; says to Peter the first time &#34;Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?&#34; Then Peter replies, &#34;Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.&#34; I don&#39;t think searching within Peter lead to the conclusion that consisted of Yes my love is greater than all the other Apostles or others that will die for Christ. We may notice the second time Christ does not say &#34;Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?&#34; but rather He omits the &#40;more than these&#41; language. Why is that? Simon, son of John, do you love Me?&#34; How does one measure such things and when God searches our hearts does He not compel us to look at the Truth.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one&#39;s life for his friends.

From the correct Orthodox Catholic perspective clearly this was not an event for promotion of the Papacy to a singular infallible position. It was an event that accepted him back into the fold of all the other Apostles that did not deny the Lord for it was a matter pertaining to Peter, who out of human weakness denied the Lord three times. It is only through human weakness that any Bishop could sit on the Papal throne.

We can read that Peter must have been troubled knowing that he denied Christ, surely he must have been humbled when Christ searched his heart.

Luke 22: 33 -34 But he said to Him, &#34;Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.&#34;

Then He said, &#34;I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me

Peter was told to be a Shepard. The seeds of infallibility that the Latins have watered never existed. All the councils that are not accepted by the Orthodox Church have really produced a different mindset. I know that if any member of our Parish brought out a Birthday cake for Jesus our Bishop would say have you gone mad! What are you doing! etc. To teach such things to a worldwide EWTN audience certainly does not convey the notion of embracing traditional examples of Orthodox Christianity.

You have mentioned that Vatican II has caused you great personal suffering and inner turmoil, well before your experience Orthodox Christians have shared similar feelings with you. Our Bishops, Saints and laity have time after time requested that Rome return to the Orthodox faith in Truth the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Ken McRae]

Matthew originally posted:-


"I think one of the problems is how things are interpreted. I don't know how accurate it is to mention that the Vatican II references had been deeply impressed upon the contemporary Catholic mind. I suspect some would see things that way but not most. I recall last year I was watching EWTN and during the feast of the Nativity the monks I think they had been Franciscans brought out a birthday cake with one candle and told the audience that it is Christmas and we should all do something special, they began to sing Happy Birthday to Jesus and told others to do the same thing at home. They also suggested putting a stocking with Jesus' name on the tree etc., following the spirit of Vatican II. Suffice it to say it was an adult audience. I sat there shaking my head insofar as such instruction didn't come close to conveying the Orthodox Patristic understanding of the 2nd person of the Trinity."

Though I do not consider myself a defender of Vatican II by any stretch of the imagination, I fail to see how "putting a stocking with Jesus' name on the tree" can be even remotely interpreted as "following the spirit of Vatican II". Yes, how things are interpreted is of critical importantance. A question that we ought to ask ourselves, though, concerns how the spirit of charity influences the way we interpret things? Does it place the best possible construction on the things we see, hear and read, or the worst? That is to say, what does it mean to "interpret" things charitably? Does it mean to interpret them in the best light possible or the worst? Does charity assume the worst of others or the best? Would charity judge contemporary Catholicism by its worse examples or its best? Or would it judge contemporary Orthodox monasticism by its worst monks or its best? So, indeed, the way we interpret things is very important !! This is undeniable, I think.

I do not doubt that such an event occurred as you've described it, and it does strike me at first as a little "off-the-wall", but I do hesitate to accept your interpretation of it. How would charity interpret the words of these Franciscan monks? Might charity be inclined to interpret them as a type of benign attempt to remind EWTN viewers of the true spirit of Christmas? Would charity be inclined to read all kinds of subtle and hidden messages into their words? I can certainly see how such words can and do lend themselves to severe criticism, but I'm of the opinion that the spirit of charity would be reluctant to go there, but would rather try to minimize the criticism by casting the event in the best possible light it affords us. Though singing happy birthday to Jesus at Christmas does not personally strike me as a particularly good thing, I do not necessarily see it as pagan either. Though I cannot envision myself engaging in such an activity, the intent is not so foreign to the celebratory nature of the season.

How we interpret things is very important, like what it means to be truly Catholic, for example, or truly Orthodox. I think you would agree that not all who call themselves Orthodox are truly Orthodox. Not all who call themselves Catholic are truly Catholic. How many points or tenents of the Orthodox faith may a person reject and still be Orthodox? The correct answer to that, in my eyes, is "none". The same is true in Catholicism. By that criteria, I find it difficult to view the Vatican II Church as truly Catholic. However, in my humble opinion, it is not possible for those who have received Vatican II as authoritative to reject any of its decrees, including those I have referenced above. So we must be careful to distinguish, wherever possible, between those who are Orthodox in name only and those who are Orthodox indeed. Were I truly inclined to place the worst possible construction on the events you've described, I'd question the monastic calling of these Franciscans. However, I'd stop short of grossly stereotyping most Catholics by their case or example.

If you truly believe this event, as you've described it, is "following in the spirit of Vatican II", I'd like to see how you've arrived at that conclusion, step by step. If you want to know what I feel is the best example of "following in the spirit of Vatican II", read "the spiritual memoir of a French Catholic scholar and monk who eventually becomes an Athonite monk," published by Hieromonk Alexander Golitzin, in his book on 'The Living Witness of the Holy Mountain' (http://www.eighthdaybooks.com/cgi-bin/virtualcatalog/CatalogMgr.pl?cartID=b-8360&SearchField=partnumber&SearchFor=0178&template=Htx/item.htx). The diligence of this Catholic monk to put into practice the Vatican II decree on ecumenism is typical of many contemporary Catholic monks who have not converted to Orthodoxy. I think Charity would look at those monks as better examples of "following in the spirit of Vatican II," at least in regard to its decree on ecumenism.

humbly,
Theophilus

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilus,

There is no doubt that the EWTN program I mentioned sought to remind people of the purpose of Christmas. Perhaps others would find it more appealing than I did. Here is the link you can listen to it by advancing to about the 55:00 minute place. Show #339 Originally aired: 12/18/2003

http://www.ewtn.com/rock/files/past1.asp

I&#39;m not trying to grossly stereotype Catholics by citing the aforementioned program. However when I see some things very strong contrasts between East and West are obvious to me. Some of these contrast are seemingly not so severe depending on ones perspective however there is never anytime when an Orthodox perspective is not charitable even if it does not seem so. The spirit of Vatican II is the same spirit which remains in the innovative Latin Church that was introduced prior to Vatican II.

I sincerely believe that it is important for Bishops, Clergy and Monastic&#39;s to keep the Orthodox faith, because departing from it effects those that they guide.

Several months before the aforementioned program I viewed another program on EWTN in which the Priest had been speaking about the very serious blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He gave the example of a man going to confession and confessing that he was living with a woman and not married and he knew at the time of his confession that it is a sin but has no intention of correcting the situation. This the well known Priest called the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Surely there are many sincere people who struggle with sins and intention as well as emotions. Saying such implies that there is no hope for such people as they from this well known Priest&#39;s perspective are doomed. No chance of salvation as the sin is unforgivable in this age or the age to come. Repentance is no longer available to such a person? Suffice it to say many people view the EWTN program, I shuddered at the thought that some viewers my have thought well I once did that or something like that etc. One would hope that the commentators would want to say things accurately and clearly. In Orthodox Christianity repentance is available until your last breath, like the wise thief on the cross and there is always hope with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Orthodox understanding of Matthew 12:32 is that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is against the divine activity of the Spirit - the accusation that Jesus Christ healed the demonic by demonic power &#40;v. 24&#41;. rather than the power of the Holy Spirit &#40;v. 28; see Mark 3.29, 30&#41; Every sin against the Son of Man can be forgiven, because the Jews do not yet know much about him. But the blasphemy against the Spirit, whose divine activity they know from the OT, will not be forgiven. This blasphemy is a willful hardness of heart. It attributes the saving action of the Spirit to satan and refuses to accept God&#39;s forgiveness and mercy.

I do not believe some of these comments are said with the intention of being harmful but come from a lack of understanding by means of relying on ones own ideas and notions or does the Latin Church support this Priest&#39;s understandings? He certainly seemed to think so.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

&#40;Message edited by Matthew_P on 11 May, 2005&#41;

[Ken McRae]

Matthew originally posted:-


"There is no doubt that the EWTN program I mentioned sought to remind people of the purpose of Christmas. Perhaps others would find it more appealing than I did. Here is the link you can listen to it by advancing to about the 55:00 minute place. Show #339 Originally aired: 12/18/2003 http://www.ewtn.com/rock/files/past1.asp "

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for the link. I listened to part of the program and was not at all impressed. It did not appeal to me in the slightest. The host and guests struck me as typical Vatican II "Catholics", and I, for the most part, am turned-off by Vatican II Catholics, except where they have used their "freedom" to explore Orthodoxy, or return to a more "traditionally" Catholic way of life.

Matthew originally posted:-


"I'm not trying to grossly stereotype Catholics by citing the aforementioned program. However when I see some things very strong contrasts between East and West are obvious to me."

Why are'nt these contrasts you've cited obvious to me, then? If you seriously think that singing happy birthday to Jesus, or placing a gift under the tree for Jesus, or hanging a stocking for Him with His name on it are "Catholic traditions", then you are indeed guilty of "gross stereotyping". I've honestly never heard of such "Catholic traditions" until you brought them to our notice. However, though they may not be "Catholic traditions", strictly speaking, this is not to say such practices are'nt more frequently found today among some Vatican II Catholics, who have lost all sense of "Catholic tradition", thanks to Vatican II. In this sense, then, I suppose one actually could attribute them to "the spirit of Vatican II", insofar as they've been indirectly fostered by that council's "clear" break with pre-Vatican II tradition.

Matthew originally posted:-


" ... never anytime when an Orthodox perspective is not charitable even if it does not seem so."

You talk as though all Orthodox, without exception, are dispassionate saints, and quite beyond making "uncharitable" judgments and sterotyping. The reality is that most Orthodox have not achieved even the second stage of theosis and are thus daily engaged in the struggle against uncharitable thoughts, words, and actions.

Matthew originally posted:-


"The spirit of Vatican II is the same spirit which remains in the innovative Latin Church that was introduced prior to Vatican II."

The degree to which this "innovativeness" found expression in pre-Vatican II Catholicsim was exceedingly rare, though, by comparison to Vatican II. Anyone who has seriously looked into this would agree, I think.

Matthew originally posted:-


"I sincerely believe that it is important for Bishops, Clergy and Monastic's to keep the Orthodox faith, because departing from it effects those that they guide."

Emphatically yes!! I could'nt agree more. However, that bad or careless monks exist is a sad fact of life. It does no one any good to pretend otherwise.

Matthew originally posted:-


"Several months before the aforementioned program I viewed another program on EWTN in which the Priest had been speaking about the very serious blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He gave the example of a man going to confession and confessing that he was living with a woman and not married and he knew at the time of his confession that it is a sin but has no intention of correcting the situation. This the well known Priest called the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ... etc."

This is a very "uncharacteristic" stance for a "Vatican II" priest, I feel; so uncharacteristic that I'm inclined to think you might've misunderstood him. If he did, in fact, say this, I'm inclined to regard it more as his theological opinion, than anything else, of what "the unforgiveable sin" is. It seems as though he might've been thinking of the account in the Book of Acts of the husband and wife who lied to the Holy Spirit, and were thus punished by death for this, but St. Luke never equates that sin with the "unforgiveable" sin, if memory serves me.

Matthew originally posted:-


"Surely there are many sincere people who struggle with sins and intention as well as emotions. Saying such implies that there is no hope for such people as they from this well known Priest's perspective are doomed. No chance of salvation as the sin is unforgivable in this age or the age to come. Repentance is no longer available to such a person? Suffice it to say many people view the EWTN program, I shuddered at the thought that some viewers my have thought well I once did that or something like that etc. One would hope that the commentators would want to say things accurately and clearly."

The priest's scenario seems highly academic and unlikely to me. Why would anyone who truly believes in the Holy Spirit go to confession to confess sins he had no intention of ever giving up? And, besides, how is it possible for an unbeliever to commit the "unforgiveable" sin against Him in whom they have no faith anyway? The unbeliever knows not what he does, sinning in blindness and ignorance.

Matthew originally posted:-


"In Orthodox Christianity repentance is available until your last breath, like the wise thief on the cross and there is always hope with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

I'd say this is true of Catholicism as well.

Matthew originally posted:-


"The Orthodox understanding of Matthew 12:32 is that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is against the divine activity of the Spirit - the accusation that Jesus Christ healed the demonic by demonic power (v. 24). rather than the power of the Holy Spirit (v. 28; see Mark 3.29, 30) Every sin against the Son of Man can be forgiven, because the Jews do not yet know much about him. But the blasphemy against the Spirit, whose divine activity they know from the OT, will not be forgiven. This blasphemy is a willful hardness of heart. It attributes the saving action of the Spirit to satan and refuses to accept God's forgiveness and mercy."

Again, this is basically the Catholic view as well. It could not be otherwise, as it is the clear teaching of the Gospel.

Matthew originally posted:-


"I do not believe some of these comments are said with the intention of being harmful but come from a lack of understanding by means of relying on ones own ideas and notions or does the Latin Church support this Priest's understandings? He certainly seemed to think so."

If the priest was trying to say that lying to the Holy Spirit is an "unforgiveable" sin, then perhaps he was correct. It is difficult to see how lying to the Holy Spirit is not equal to blaspheming Him, though it seems to fall short of attributing His works to the agency of satan. I'd be inclined to say that many in the Latin Church might agree with the notion that lying to the Holy Spirit comes, at the very least, very close to blaspheming Him.

humbly,
Theophilus

[Matthew Panchisin]

Why aren&#39;t these contrasts you&#39;ve cited obvious to me, then?

Because I don&#39;t believe that a person can ever acquire an Orthodox phronema and believe some of the things the Latin Church teaches nowadays. Part of that phronema includes knowing the difference.

I don&#39;t mean to talk as though all Orthodox, without exception, are dispassionate saints, for if that was my disposition I suppose I would be in a dispassionate state which I can assure you I&#39;m not. However I do believe that the Orthodox Church is the ark of salvation and is most charitable Her wisdom. It was in that sense that I meant an Orthodox perspective is always charitable even if it does not seem so.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Ken McRae]

Theophilus posted:-


"Why aren't these contrasts you've cited obvious to me, then?"

Matthew replied:-


"Because I don't believe that a person can ever acquire an Orthodox phronema and believe some of the things the Latin Church teaches nowadays. Part of that phronema includes knowing the difference."

My reference, in the above quote, to the contrast(s) you've cited was strictly limited to "singing happy birthday to Jesus on Christmas, or putting a gift under the tree for Him, or hanging a stocking with His name on it." You clearly implied that these three practices were "Catholic traditions" which I plainly denied, and still do. And that is the reason why your contrasts did not appear obvious to me; because what you have chosen to contrast with Orthodoxy, in these three particular cases, are not at all to be received as "Catholic traditions". They are no more Catholic than they are Orthodox. And thus the contrast(s) you drew had no basis in reality. That is the "real" reason why they did not appear "obvious" to me. These three practices you've drawn attention to here have struck me more as the influence of contemporary Protestant Evangelicalism, which has appealed to many Vatican II Catholics wholly disoriented by Vatican II's tragic break away from received Catholic tradition, in the name of modernistic ecumenism.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilus,

Christ is Risen!

God bless you I sincerely hope that there are more Roman Catholics that prefer more traditional practices.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The things described in the post above- singing Happy Birthday to Jesus, etc are only symptoms of a much deeper problem going back to the time of the Schism. The filioque & Papal supremacy were signs of the increasing worldliness that affected every aspect of western theology and piety- to the point that it was no longer just distinct (something the Church accepts) but actually represented a new type of 'Christianity'. Thus renovation is at the very heart of what caused the Schism and it is in fact this which we most deeply react against in Orthodoxy.

For us Happy Birthday is not an exception but rather the sign of the deeper problem of Patristic abandonment which has been constant for over 1000 years now in Catholicism. Thus for us conservative & liberal Catholicism are not two fundamentally opposing forces but rather two sides of the same coin. And this is why we do not accept that conservative Catholicism is a form of 'western Orthodoxy'. So sadly we have come to see as normal when John Paul or the present Pope- who are conservative compared to many others- are present at Christian events which to them are positive but to us are truly shocking.

The effort to rescue the ship by claiming that what is now common Catholic practice and which the Popes themselves promulgate & participate in is not really Catholic tradition is the very sign of the problem that we react against. For us what the Church accomplishes by sobornost' through Her Councils is the very expression of the Faith & Tradition. Unless we claim that these are robber Councils guided by robber hierarchs- in which case also Tradition leaves you with only the option of recognizing that your church is heretical. In other words to reject on such a fundamental level what your own church with its bishops teaches & then to try to justify remaining by claiming that this is not the fundamental Catholic teaching is itself a sign of a fundamental rejection of Tradition.

The Church cannot have two opposing traditions- or a tradition which the bishops & councils teach but we personally hold to another. This is the very sign that we are no longer in the Church for Tradition is the very Life of Christ tying the Church together in His Truth. There is One Christ, One Truth, One Church. And it is this that we are members of. So on this fundamental level of theology, Councils, & what the bishops teach- Catholicism either has this Truth and is the Church or it does not have this Truth and it is not the Church. But then- if your church still has the Truth- why consider leaving it and becoming Orthodox? And if it doesn't- why are you still there? Now there's the $64 question!

One thing's for sure- if we crave the food offered at the Wedding Feast then there is only one way to satisfy that hunger. Trying to look into the Feast from the outside will only make things worse. There's no 'take-out service' so you have to enter in yourself.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Elias Young]

yes...the Christmas tree tradition seems to have been brought to this country via the Germans sometime after the Protestant revolution in the 16th century.

http://www.christmas-tree.com/where.html

However, the Orthodox do not consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be all that far apart ideologically in that both depend on a certain cult of personality which engenders their mutual senses of theological/doctrinal legitimacy. For Rome the personality is found in the externalized person of the Pope. For Protestants it appears to be found within in the inner workings of the individual believer.

elias

&#42;&#42;&#42;&#42;&#42;&#42;&#42;&#42;&#42;&#42;

...&#34;singing happy birthday to Jesus on Christmas, or putting a gift under the tree for Him, or hanging a stocking with His name on it.&#34; You clearly implied that these three practices were &#34;Catholic traditions&#34; which I plainly denied, and still do....what you have chosen to contrast with Orthodoxy, in these three particular cases, are not at all to be received as &#34;Catholic traditions&#34;. They are no more Catholic than they are Orthodox...These three practices you&#39;ve drawn attention to here have struck me more as the influence of contemporary Protestant Evangelicalism...

[Kosmas Damianides]

Hi,http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/proud.gif

I think that everyone should become Orthodox and accept that a hand with four fingers &#40;the Orthodox Church&#41; is still called a hand, but when one finger &#40;the RC Church&#41; stands by itself, it can&#39;t call itself a hand anymore.

There is no denying that we as sensitive loving Orthodox Christian people love our missing finger, which although at first was only cut off, now is starting to break appart &#40;Protestant movement&#41;and stink of rot &#40;new dogmas&#41;.

I would also add that there seems to be a Protestantisation of Catholicism. I think that this will present a great problem for re-unification in the future. The cardinals always look to the West and seldom to the East, why is that THeofilus? I also think that the Vat. 2 was in some ways good because it did to some extent look to the East. But perhaps the downfall of the Roman Catholic Church is the introduction of so many reforms.

I hope this was not offensive, but that&#39;s how I feel.

With lots of brotherly Love.

Kosmas

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Over 150 years ago Alexei Khomiakov already explained how Catholicism & Protestantism are actually just two sides of the same coin. So it is not surprising that there have been growing Evangelical influences on Catholicism. And this has been going on for at least 30 years.

But a similar spirit can now be seen throughout western Christianity- whether it is Catholic, Anglican, High or Low, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. So it could very well be that something more fundamental than Evangelical influence is going on.

We who have been brought up in the modern west are so deeply influenced by the idea of multiple truths and therefore multiple choices that we have a difficult time really absorbing what One True Church really means. In our heads we might accept or even say the words but in our hearts we don't see the depth of what this means.

Maybe though it's easier to see this on the personal level. When someone comes to the Church we explain that following Christ within the Church is not the choice of many truths. The only choice is to be saved or perish. And we can actually see the damage to a whole person if they reject Christ- we can see them tragically 'unravel' before our eyes.

On the level of the whole Church it can only be the same if an entire group leaves the Church. After all we are still talking about individual people. So if a whole group leaves the Church they begin to gradually unravel to the extent that they lose the true teachings of Christ. The church and society they form will inevitably unravel. Now how exactly this will happen over time only God and the clear-sighted saints can see. But that it will happen is absolutely guaranteed as long as there is no conscious turning back to Patristic Christianity.

So we can say that Evangelical influences are spreading through western Christianity. On the deeper level however it could be that what we are seeing is just one more inevitable step in a descent into a worldly spirit over time.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

I think that Elias brings up a very good point as far as personalities are concerned relative to what some &#34;Churches&#34; teach. There are often very different statements that are issued depending on who is at the helm even within short lengths of time of 50 years or so.

Pope Pius XII:

“O Mary Mother of Mercy and Refuge of Sinners! We beseech thee to look with pitying eyes on poor heretics and schismatics. Do thou, who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds wretchedly enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly recognize the Holy, Catholic, Roman Church to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither sanctity nor salvation can be found.”
The Raccolta, 1957, No. 626.


Dominus Iesus

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

It should be clear that both statements can&#39;t be true and there are many more that are of the same essence from the Latins at different points in time. The newest thinking seems to be that the Orthodox are in some way in the Roman Church even if we don&#39;t want to be hence such negative comments are not applicable to us even when they are directly addressed to us. I suppose that is better than being doomed and not being in the roam&#39;in Church.

Very strange and hard to believe.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Owen Jones]

&#34;So we can say that Evangelical influences are spreading through western Christianity. On the deeper level however it could be that what we are seeing is just one more inevitable step in a descent into a worldly spirit over time.&#34;

I don&#39;t see it quite this way. I believe there are complex historical and cultural reasons for this. Orthodoxy has been essentially cut off from the West since the rise of Muslim domination, and more recently, the domination of communist states in orthodox countries in the last century. People in the West who are hungry for salvation have no place to go but to adopt so-called Evangelical Protestantism. We should not condemn this valid desire as worldliness. Because protestantism is only half a loaf, we should not use that as a condemnation of these sincere believers who do not know better. We should instead ask ourselves, now that Orthodoxy is no longer living under tyranny in former communist lands, now that Greece and Serbia have been liberated from tyranny, now that there are many thousands of Orthodox in the U.S. who have emigrated from Greece and other countries and have brought their religion with them, why it is that nobody knows anything about Orthodoxy. Whose fault is that?

I have tried to stay away from my local parish issues on this forum, but my local parish has absolutely no outreach into the community whatsoever. They explicitly do not wish to do so. They do not even want to see Orthodox books on display at their annual Greek festival, which is used, not to help the poor, or those in prison, or prostitutes who need our ministrations, but to pay the bills for the parish. This very same parish changes priests every two years like clockwork. No one remembers the last time the parish produced a seminarian, let alone a monastic. Such a Church deserves to die, bulldozed, with the ground salted. Please don&#39;t come back with how wonderful your own parish is and how holy your priest is and how beautiful the liturgy is and all that pious stuff. Orthodoxy in America is almost universally insular, self-involved, and irrelevant in a cultural/historical/theological sense.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Owen wrote:


Whose fault is that?

It's my fault.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

When the Church is deemed to be an anachronism I think we all bear responsibility.

[M. Rallis]

&#34; Such a church deserves to die, be bulldozed, with the ground salted&#34;.

A friend of mine left his home in another city, relocated here with his family, left an evangelical protestant church, and became Orthodox, along with his wife and 5 children.

Another friend, family really as I&#39;m the godfather to his son, was baptized Orthodox while attending medical school in Washington, D.C., took a year off to study at St. Vladimir&#39;s, and serves as choir dirctor and chanter in his parish.

Our new parish priest was overcome with joy at the crowds attending his church tours, during our recent Greek Festival. 4 tours a day, 200 attending each tour. Many excellent questions, many asking to attend Orthodox catechism classes.

Six of my friends, all with graduate degrees in their various professions, gave a wonderful concert of traditional byzantine ecclesiastical chant at Duke Chapel this past fall. Their ability to do so being almost miraculous considering the overwhelming difficulty in learning traditional chant in this country.

This is probably the &#34;pious stuff&#34; Owen was attempting to invalidate in his post, but, to me, represents a few insights into how Orthodoxy is actually reaching out and saving people, one at a time, in our country. Which is why I cringe when I read something like the comment quoted above. My own mind set is that the Spirit is continually working miracles in people&#39;s lives, through the Orthodox Church, whether we are able to perceive it or not.

[Owen Jones]

I agree totally with the last post, but sometimes we need to get a few things off our chest.

[Arsenios]

Owen wrote:


"Orthodoxy in America is almost universally insular, self-involved, and irrelevant in a cultural/historical/theological sense."

Much of the immigrant Church was as you describe it, and this is still findable in Orthodoxy in America today all too easily. Yet I see missions everywhere here in the Pac NW - And my own parish has just started one 65 miles from its home. [I am its live-in janitor and Reader in training]...

The sense I have, Owen, is that the Church arrived with the immigrants who wanted to fit in and disappear, for they were tired of conflict and war and persecutions, and were suffering in some measure from an almost 'battered spouse syndrome', as it were... But now you will be finding, as time goes on, an ever growing creschendo of inquirers and new members, such that we really need to be training a LOT of priests and deacons and minor clergy...

Orthodoxy is past being just on the verge of taking off - It IS taking off - It is the new kid on the block, and nobody is giving what Orthodoxy gives - Nobody...

And the insular little ethnic enclaves that wish to keep to themselves and bury their talent instead of increasing it will not fare well...

I am sorry you have such a parish, and will pray for you and for yours...

But nothing is going to hold back this Church in the US... Not for some time at least - Well on past the bleaching of my sorry bones for a minimum...

Arsenios

[Vasilis Kirikos]

Christ is Risen! I feel lost. I respectfully ask for your prayers. I have been in search for a job for several months now (over a year); albeit I am not financially hurting as yet.; thanks be to the Lord. May His will be done. Yours in Christ, Vasilis

[Vasilis Kirikos]

Christ Is Risen!

Tonight I saw a program on NBC about miracles. It was quite moving. > Part of this documentary was on a Roman Catholic area in Yugoslavia > where a huge cross bearing our Lord was dripping a liquid. It was > reported that this liquid has been flowing for quite sometime now; I > think it was said to have been flowing a few years. It was truly > moving. It reminded me of a report that I once read about a Orthodox > Christian man who worked as a valet (a butler or gentleman's > gentleman, so called) in Paris, France who, if my memory serves me > correctly, daily had myrrh flowing from his hands. The article > reported that a film crew from a Paris news station filmed this > miracle on one occasion as it happened. Does anyone on this forum > know what has become of this man? I believe that he belonged to the > Antiochian Orthodox community under Patriarch Ignatius. > In Christ Vasiis

[Effie Ganatsios]

Owen you write :


We should instead ask ourselves, now that Orthodoxy is no longer living under tyranny in former communist lands, now that Greece and Serbia have been liberated from tyranny, now that there are many thousands of Orthodox in the U.S. who have emigrated from Greece and other countries and have brought their religion with them, why it is that nobody knows anything about Orthodoxy. Whose fault is that?

I sometimes have difficulty in understanding your thoughts. What tyranny has Greece been liberated from? Are you seriously suggesting that Greeks don’t read books about the Orthodox religion ? And that they lack knowledge of their religion? This is a people who kept their religion alive in their hearts and died for it during 400 years of Turkish/Muslim occupation.

Forgive my harsh words, Owen, but in some of your messages you seem to infer that so-called cradle Orthodox are somehow inferior to people like yourself. You are unhappy with your parish, I’m not disputing that, but as you are a member, why aren’t you doing something to help.

I have just gone through a distressful period because of the scandals in the Greek Orthodox Church but a corrupt minority does not mean that the majority are not worthy of our respect.

In the past a suspicion has crept into my mind after reading some of your comments that you aren’t Orthodox at all. Why do you belittle those who brought Orthodoxy to you. It sometimes helps us to understand ourselves if we reverse a situation. Imagine : A protestant congregation and a couple of Orthodox converts to this denomination. At first everything is terrific, then slowly, slowly the former Orthodox start feeling a little uncomfortable and start thinking along these lines : why can’t these people have an icon or two in church?.. and who do these red-necks think they are – such hypocrites, going on and on about their personal salvation and not caring and loving their families and those around them…. Etc. etc.

What has happened to humility and love? Especially love, God’s love, which is not the sugary, sentimental claptrap that sprouts so easily from some mouths. But the love we all have within us, the God we have within us. This love translates as respect for our fellow man, we respect his different approach to life. God’s love simplifies our lives and it is endurable. Money grabbing priests? Forget the outward picture, concentrate on those priests that give 100% of themselves to help the suffering in their parishes. A parish that is not living up to what you consider their obligations to be? Why did you join this parish in the first place – aren’t those reasons still valid? Aren’t there others in your parish who feel and think as you do?

God’s love knows no limits – it should flow through us and if it doesn’t, how can we hope for oneness with Him. I have found that bitterness, hopelessness, etc. are barriers that stop the flow.

Owen, you write : “why it is that nobody knows anything about Orthodoxy. Whose fault is that? “ As Greeks have been in the US for well over a hundred years could it be that they are not interested in converting others to the Orthodox religion because they respect that each man should be free to worship how he wishes. If it is God's will, people will find their way to Orthodoxy, just as you and others like you did.

Effie

[Owen Jones]

Referring to Greece no longer being under the ottomans.

[Kosmas Damianides]

When a monk goes to eat, he sits down after he prays and then while he is eating he is still praying. he dosn't look at other people's plates only his own. This is a tradition which has lasted for many centuries (depending on the monsatary obviously).

Why does the monk do this? So that the temptation to have more is not stirred within him; or by seeing that another has more food than he does he may fall into the sin of pride, or judge his brother wrogfully.

I think that we should not compare with our minds and hearts as to how successful one religion is from another. Ask ourselves Is this a real indication of where the Truth abides?

Is that what Orthodoxy is about? We often are side-tracked into think on a materialistic secular level...

As Effie said "What has happened to humility and love? Especially love, God’s love...?"

It's there, always inside us, if you truly wish to find it.

"The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, `Here it is,' or `There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20b-21)

"You diligently study the Scriptures [Says Jesus] because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life." John 5:39-40.

I think that the Orthodox church as a whole is doing great all it needs is to be more Apostolic missionary and keep away from worldly imurity and corruption.

The world is not our tue friend Jesus is. o monos philanthropos.

[Elias Young]

Fr Raphael Vereshack wrote:


Over 150 years ago Alexei Khomiakov already explained how Catholicism & Protestantism are actually just two sides of the same coin. So it is not surprising that there have been growing Evangelical influences on Catholicism. And this has been going on for at least 30 years....

In 1963 Timothy (now +Kallistos) Ware first wrote in the introduction to his book, "The Orthodox Church" (earlier editions):


"All Protestants are Crypto-Papists. To use the concise language of algebra, all the West knows but one datum 'a'; whether it be preceded by the positive sign +, as with the Romanists, or with the negative -, as with the Protestants, the 'a' remains the same. Now a passage to Orthodoxy seems indeed like an apostasy from the past, from its science, creed, and life. It is rushing into a new and unknown world."

Khomiakov, when he spoke of the datum 'a', had in mind the fact that western Christians, whether Free Churchmen, Anglicans, or Roman Catholics, have a common background in the past. All alike (although they may not always care to admit it) have been profoundly influenced by the same events: by the Papal centralization and the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, by the Renaissance, by the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. But behind members of the Orthodox Church-Greeks, Russians, and the rest-there lies a very different background. They have no Middle Ages (in the Western sense) and they have undergone no Reformations or CounterReformations; they have only been affected in an oblique way by the cultural and religious upheaval which transformed Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Christians in the West, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers. In Orthodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different- the questions themselves are not the same as in the West.

Orthodox see history in another perspective. Consider, for example, the Orthodox attitude towards religious disputes. In the West it is usual to think of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as opposite extremes; but to an Orthodox they appear as two sides of the same coin. Khomiakov calls the Pope 'the first Protestant', 'the father of German rationalism'.

"A new and unknown world": Khomiakov was right to speak of Orthodoxy in this way. Orthodoxy is not just a kind of Roman Catholicism without the Pope, but something quite distinctive from any religious system in the West.

[Owen Jones]

Indeed, the Orthodox Church did undergo a protestant reformation attempt. It was called the iconoclastic controversy. The use of icons had become objectivized. One might say that many in the Church had objectivized icons, as the Latin Scholastics objectivized God and theological concepts. The reality and truth of the symbol had been lost. People knew the healing power of icons, but had gone through such an extreme of objectification that they were grinding up the wood of icons to use as medicines. The revolt took place by the iconoclasts. But instead of trying to restore iconography to its true symbolic function &#40;and remember, in Orthodoxy there is a real meaning to a symbol. We use the term symbol as something substantive, not simply as a pointer to something else&#41;they smashed the icons. This is exactly what happened in the Reformation. The reaction against the spiritual deadness of a Church that had objectivised all of its beliefs and left no room for spiritual sensitivity went to an extreme, and instead of a reform movement within the Church, it destroyed the substance of the Church&#39;s most important teaching on communion with Christ.

Now, there are a couple of theories as to why the victory of Orthodoxy over iconoclasm, and the true meaning of the symbol was restored without creating a new sect. The overarching one of course has been quoted by Fr. V. several times. But I think it is also true that the earlier the revolution, the less extreme, and the greater the chance of resistance. The revolution in the West occurred a thousand years later, and by that time, it was too late.

[Effie Ganatsios]

It is true that other Christian denominations do not know a lot about us. Below is just one example.

Last week I read an account of a Protestant woman's conversion to Catholicism. She claims that she started experiencing illumination but that she was afraid to tell anyone and when she did, she was sort of patted on the back and not taken seriously by her Roman Catholic spiritual advisor. She felt alone and misunderstood and cried out for someone to understand what she was going through. Her experience might have been a delusion but it might also have been real.

Here is the final paragraph of her essay:


“Lack of adequate and enlightened direction is a real problem, especially when one comes to the Night of Spirit. Then, only another who has lived through the same experience can be of support. ………..

…..How one goes about finding an enlightened director is a mystery to me!! After 16 years of searching I haven't found one yet, only the authors of books, i.e. Merton, John of the Cross, Teresa and Therese, Augustine Baker, Jacques and Raissa Maritain, D.T. Suzuki, Eckhart, Suso,Evelyn Underhill, Garrigou Lagrange, etc., all with much to say which is valid, but all dead!! Where our modern day mystics are, and how to get in touch with them, I have no idea. "

Reading the last lines of this essay I realized this woman (a practising Catholic for many years now) had no idea that people such as Monk Paisios and Mother Gabriela existed - two modern day mystics. There are many others but I refer to these two because I have their biographies and have come to love them.

What is the Orthodox faith without it’s spiritual side? How can one exist without the other? Even Plotinus who was a pagan knew about the soul’s striving for oneness with God : “ So, we must ascend again to the Good, which every soul desires. ……until passing in the ascent all that is alien to the God, one sees with one’s self alone. That alone, simple, single, and pure, from which all depends, and to which all look and are and live and think; for it is cause of life and mind and being.”

The Orthodox rightly or wrongly have a reputation for being insular but it seems to me - and I'm not using just the above example as a basis for my opinion - that other Christians have no idea of the spiritual treasures of the Orthodox church. St. Basil, St. John Chrysostomos, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Symeon the New Theologian……the list goes on and on. Studying what these great men wrote will help us get our priorities right. First the heart, then the nous (allied to God) and all good works will follow. How can we not help our fellow man when our heart is God’s?

Perhaps one of the things that many people cannot understand about the Orthodox religion is that it is not concerned so much with the external aspects of our faith and tradition as with the experience of an inner life. St. Theophan the Recluse tells us : a Christian “comes to understand that the essence of the Christian life consists in establishing himself with the mind in the heart before God in the Lord Jesus Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

We have to resist Western influence, which regards religion in an entirely different way from us– it is more concerned with reason than with the heart. Knowledge before Faith or Knowledge that comes from Faith. Spiritual knowledge is the latter and is the Orthodox way. This does not mean that we put our minds on hold regarding our faith but that we strive each day for spiritual growth and learn to trust our hearts and our intuition which some say is the voice of God. We know that the wisdom of the holy men I previously referred to was attained by personal spiritual experience. Western thought has already eroded our faith in some ways and I believe we should go back to the essential elements of Orthodoxy. We should read the Bible, read the Desert Fathers, read the works of our holy men, follow their advice and pray. Pray continuously. With words or without words. “Be still and know that I am God”.

I am no theologian and I know all too well that other fine people on this forum are more knowledgeable than myself, but as I found the following this morning in my daily meditation, I wanted to share the above thoughts with you.

“Love God and love one another! Love your faith and live your faith! Know your faith, and share your faith with others, as well as defend it and speak of it’s truths….Christ our Lord is truth, and Holy Orthodoxy is the same truth.”

Effie

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear all,

Christ is Risen!


Since this thread is about Mystics/Spirituality and Catholic Spirituality I think that Effie was almost fully accurate in saying; &#34;We have to resist Western influence, which regards religion in an entirely different way from us– it is more concerned with reason than with the heart. Knowledge before Faith or Knowledge that comes from Faith. Spiritual knowledge is the latter and is the Orthodox way.&#34;

If I may be so bold, I would only expand Effies wonderful comments a bit and add that we all have to resist the influence of sin, namely the spirit that opposes the Spirit of Truth. The spirit that opposes the Spirit of Truth is in all heretical understandings.

I just recieved a google news alert and found out the Bishop of Rome was presented the Catholic Encyclopedia in Russian. I sure hope he doesn&#39;t use it to learn more about Orthodox spirituality.

I suppose that if he lead a pilgrimage to Mount Athos and consulted the Catholic Encyclopedia he would be presented with some distorted and strange understandings. These distortions have not changed to much for well over 1000 years. Owen don&#39;t you think that the spirit that produces and promulgates them supercedes historical circumstances? By the way what will the Russians that read it think when they learn of about things like ;


&#34;The story of the system of mysticism defended by the monks of Athos in the fourteenth century forms one of the most curious chapters in the history of the Byzantine Church. In itself an obscure speculation, with the wildest form of mystic extravagance as a result, it became the watchword of a political party, and incidentally involved again the everlasting controversy with Rome.


&#34;The likeness of this process of auto-suggestion to that of fakirs, Sunnyasis, and such people all over the East is obvious.&#34;


&#34;Beginning the audience, the pope greeted a delegation of Russian Catholics in their native language. “Everyone was amazed,” Kondrusiewicz described the meeting, “some wept and were saying, ’Pope Benedict, we wait for your to visit Russia’.” The Russian archbishop presented the first two volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia in Russian to the head of the Roman Catholic Church. “The pontiff took them and read a few words in Russian,” Kondrusiewicz told journalists with pleasure.&#34;

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Effie Ganatsios]

"The likeness of this process of auto-suggestion to that of fakirs, Sunnyasis, and such people all over the East is obvious."

Mathew, comments like the above have some truth to them if we only notice the external similarities. However the aim of Orthodox meditation and Eastern meditation is very different. As Orthodox we use this method to sort of open a path to communication with God. I was a bit worried about this subject because I have been practising Hatha Yoga for many years. I have not studied the philosophical side of Yoga but have practised the physical exercises and the breathing exercises.

To imply that Orthodox meditation is just a method of auto-suggestion is ridiculous. The body has certain natural rules and we know that when we control our breathing, the body relaxes. Should we go against nature just because the slow breathing involved in the Jesus Prayer is similar to that practised in the East. Perhaps Roman Catholic bodies work differently ............

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

If one is to discuss spirituality, it does not make much sense ranting about the sinners in other&#39;s Churches.

Perhaps that is how the schism between East and West began in the first place.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Alexis,

It was not my intention to rant about the sinners in others Churches, there is a difference between what a Church teaches, suggests and does and what a sinner does. Heresy is a sin that comes from sinners.

The schism happened because different understandings had been introduced and accepted in the West while the East rejected those understandings. Separating that which is incorrect from that which is correct in not incorrect or bad. The incorrect is not accepted and the correct is, that&#39;s how the schism began. It can only end when the incorrect, namely the West becomes correct and returns to that which both the East and West taught correctly prior to the schism which did not include the new understandings that exist in the West today.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Owen Jones]

Regarding the above explanation of the Schism, one must include, as a major cause of the schism, competition between two empires for domination of the Christian realm. The idea of Christian empire evolves historically, followed by a theological justification for it. Then, when Christian empires fall, the Church is left somewhat empty. Augustine created a philosophy of history to account for this, but in the East there has not been, to my knowledge, a philosophy of history to account for the rise and fall of Christian empire. Orthodoxy is still inextricably linked to national power and national and ethnic identity. Church communities that have sprung up in the West seem to lack their own sense of purpose and identity apart from a diaspora Church. There is no historical &#34;myth&#34; that has arisen to give the Church a powerful mission apart from its ethnic imperial past. To simply fall back on a critique of the Latin West, or the modernist, secular West, misses the key reality of the situation. The Church must find a mission in the Divine Economy in the context of modernism and Westernization, apart from just reacting to it.

I think this is what Florovsky was complaining about, in the recent post that quoted him.

[leandros]

I think that we very easy forget that in the early days of the Church great theological and practical issues surfaced from the different identities of the first generation Christians.

A great issue was the question of the salvation of the gentiles: whether they should had first to be introduced into the Judaic faith and then to become Christians, or if they could have become Christians at once.

Galatians 2:11-21: When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

The Apostolic Church came in synod and gave solutions that overcame the schism between its members.

What unified the Church in one piece was the eschatological unity. It was the singular feature that was prepared by God for everyone's feature on the subject of salvation, that made the different identities to become irrelevant.

Acts 11:16-17 (St. Peter says:) "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
"Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"

In this context what makes a schism of opinions and experiences to become a separation of Churches is the persistence to defend the past authentic "identity" of opinions and experiences. In the same sense the quest for a new identity is also in line with the same false effort to preserve a safe past by forming a present that will guarantee the future.

But the future is already eschatological defined as ONE COMMON future. The whole issue of salvation is about our participation in this common future in a personal or a non-personal relationship with God. God will be present in the future; We will be present in the future like we are today. There is no need for a guaranteed future status quo.

So, the Church is not a guardian of our future, She is the clinic that has open doors to accept non-person beings into therapy. The transformation from non-persons into persons is a voluntarily action that is offered to humans, not as an exclusive way of salvation but as a way of understanding of the future as the uncreated present that Christ as a man-God Person is living as the Logos (Word). This is why Apostle Peter said "who was I that I could stand in God's way" (Acts 11:17).

Finally, in Church schism situations is irrelevant who is right or wrong. The question is who is willing "to stand in God's way". And believe me there are many that are right and at the same time they are also willing "to stand in God's way", and there are others that are wrong and they say to themselves: "who am I that I could stand in God's way?"

One of these wrong thinkers, one of those that had a firmly tradition, identity and mission in the Devine economy was Apostle Peter. He was in a schismatic status regarding Apostle Paul's testimony that "he was clearly in the wrong" (in Greek text: &#234;&#225;&#244;&#229;&#227;&#237;&#249;&#243;&#236;&#229;&#237;&#239;&#242; &#231;&#237;). On the other hand, St. Peter was willing to abandon his Jewish identity for the sake of "God's way". Facing the question to become identity-less and to live a life with no mission and no tradition - regarding his Jewish self - for the sake of a common future with the gentiles -prepared by God -he choose to let his Jewish self go.

This is exactly like asking somebody today to let his Christian self go, for the sake of another non-Christian human being, because "it is God's way".

What sounds as a paradox is actually the salvation tradition of the Orthodox Church. "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it." (Luke 9:24)