Good books on Orthodox spirituality

[Byzcath1]

Could any of you recommend any book to me on Orthodox Spirituality? I'm looking for some more things to read.

In Christ+
Daniel

[Richard McBride]

Dear Daniel

It is almost universal that the first spiritual book to be read is "The Way of a Pilgrim". It is short but intense.

richard mcb

[Catholic]

Dear Daniel:

One of my favorite books (although I am not Orthodox) is The Roots of Christian Mysticism by Olivier Clement, who is Orthodox. There are many quotes of Saint Isaac the Syrian and others to illustrate what Clement is saying and the only thing is that the book was kind of pricey - like $20 - in paperback. A more economical book would be Wisdom from Mount Athos about the life of Staretz Silouan (Saint Silouan) ... it is a small book and I think only around five dollars.

I haven't done too much reading in Orthodoxy, but those are good ones that have helped me a lot.

In fact, thanks for reminding me - I am going to get that Clement book off the shelf, as I haven't even looked at it in a while!

[Fr Averky]

Daniel,

I am a priestmonk, and I was talking with one of our spiritual Fathers here in my monastery, and we agreed, that after dealing with those new to Orthodoxy or those interested in the Orthodox church for at least twenty years, that the best way to understand Her spirituality, is to initially read lives of the saints for they contain the aroma of the fragrance of Orthodoxy spirituality, are simple, yet give us clear examples of men and women who bore their cross for the sake of Christ, and that is much the essence of Orthodoxy.

As in everything we tackle, we Americans want to start at the top. We have all kinds of pseudo-theologians in our Russian Church who have read the Fathers, and know the apostolic canons, but even after many years have little knowledge of the life of the Church. One person like that managed to become a priest, and has caused himself and many others to have deep spiritual problems. The local OCA bishop says that he is his best missionary, for he drives people away and to him.

One of the problems, and I beg your pardon, Richard,. and again we talked about this only last evening that The Way of the Pilgrim is quite problematical in that even though the Pilgrim is seemingly but a crippled simple peasant, it has been thought that it was actually written by a very good and spiritually aware monk, who uses the simple everyman as a tool to give a profouind message. The Pilgrim, desiring to "pray without ceasing<" learns the Prayer of the Heart-the Jesus Prayer, and reads from the Philokalia. By strict norms, taken from centuries of monastic wisdom, a non-Orthodox should not begin with the Jesus Prayuer, and very few Orthodox laypeople are blessed to read the Philokalia for many years, because it happens to be on a particular spiritual level, which far too many converts feel they readily attained.

The typical American "Piece of cake" attitude" from war to diplomacy, at which we are very good at, is our gneral attitude about anything.

I can tell you right now, that there will be a storm of prfotest from other members of this community who will tell you not to listen to me, for I am just a reactionary, limiting peoples right "to know.' Thus, as this is a message board about Orthodox mentality and how we view things, and at times we do view things differently and we have free discussions and opinions, in respect to others, I proffer mine, and you are free to listen to whomever you please. and further, since you are not Orthodox, you are in no way obligated to listen to my afvice. I just felt that I would at least caution you.

People who are not Orthodox, and who do not know its reality, rather its appearance, not being of our Church cannot really understand what the ancient Fathers are talking about from an Orthodox perspective. Well intended Roman Catholics, will think, "well, we share those same Fathers, so it should be alright for me, not understanding that what seems to be similar on the surface, such as the Sacraments, or Mysteries, as we call them are viewed quite differently by each Church. We do have common roots, but that was too long ago, and today's Catholic Church is not even an approximation of the life of the Orthodox Church. Lives of saints are more universal, but even then, what constitues spirituality and sanctity, are again perceived quite diferently. My word are in no way meant to discourage you, but to encourage you to not go too deeply too soon, and all too often many have made that mistake, which has led many to real spiritual problems, and on this, I ask you to believe me. I myself am too weak to foolishly surmise that God or the Holy Spirit ever speaks to me, but I try to uphold Orthodoxy as I have been taught and have given to many others.Talk to almost any Orthodox priest about over-eager persons who crashed and got hurt, and he can give you many examples.

I pray you will find something of comfort to your soul and incline you to seek Holy Orthodoxy. A question-do contemporary Byzantine Catholics have Church Fathers or spiritual writers to whom they can refer to other than Latin Fathers and Doctors or Orthodox Fathers?

When I was fresh out of Catholic High School during the reign of Leo XIII, I wanted very much to become a Melkite Catholic priest and had the opportunity to meet His Holiness, Maximos V, Saigh, Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, who had come to Portland, Ore. for there was a number of Melkites in the city, and he was staying with the Lebanese Consul, who lived down the street from us. At the time, he said Rome made it very difficult for a Latin Rite person to switch to any of the Eastern Rite Churches. He told me he was soon going to Rome to complain to the Pope because one of his married priests wanted to bring his wife*for special treatment to New York, and the local Latin ordinary, would not permit a married priest because it might cause younger prieststo be tempted, and the poor woman nearly died, and had to be taken to Paris, and barely recovered. Little did the Latin bishop know what soon lay ahead... The Patriarch.a kind man, dressed entirely in white, advised me to finish seminary and keep in touch with him, but I ended up becoming Orthodox instead.

God bless and help you

Fr. A.

[Arsenios]

Daniel writes:


Could any of you recommend any book to me on Orthodox Spirituality? I'm looking for some more things to read.

First, listen carefully to Fr. A's words.

Second, reading Fr. Romanides should help, for he writes of the three stage nature of the Christian life, and it begins with purification of the heart, and that spells repentance, and it is ongoing, effective, and life-long repentance that gradually forms the basis for the next stage, which is enlightenment of the nous... No instant Zen here!

http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm

With an article on Orthodox Spirituality:
www.romanity.org/mir/me03en.htm (http://www.romanity.org/mir/me03en.htm)

And with an article on "What is a Byzantine?"
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

The whole site is worth reading, and is simply written, simple enough even for me...

Third, there is a book of that title, Orthodox Spirituality, of which you can read three chapters free online [then buy the book] at:
http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.01.htm

These were all helpful to me on my journey into Orthodoxy, as was the Philokalia and the Way of a Pilgrim, but I should tell you that until I turned away from all these and focused on my own repentance, I continued as a catechumen in the fall of prelest [spiritual delusion], to which I am still susceptible...

"Spiritual experience" outside of Orthodoxy can lead the wandering horse to the holy waters, but once there, the horse needs to enter the waters and drink, and not look back upon what got it there, seeking to slake its thirst in that journey, lest it die of the very thirst that brought it to the holy waters of Orthodoxy...

May God continue to bless you upon your wanderings, Daniel...

geo - Arsenios

[Loretta]

Greetings in Christ, Daniel

I'm currently reading "The Mountain of Silence" - a Search for Orthodox Spirituality by Kyriacos C. Markides ($12.95) and it's extremely interesting. I know I'll be rereading this a few times as there is so much to learn from it.

[Catholic]

I have a question -- since Daniel is a Byzantine Catholic, and Byzantine Catholics are (from what I have read on the Internet Byzantine discussion boards) following the Orthodox theology and Orthodox practice and so on, as opposed to anything Roman at all, wouldn't the path of such a person be, in any case, to study the Orthodox theology and practice, and Orthodox lives of saints? Is this correct? So Daniel could surely ask his priest for direction too, and would it not be basically Orthodox too? (I've not been to an EC parish so I don't know).

I know that there are some who do convert, too, and leave EC for the Orthodox Church, but I've not met any in person yet.

Anyway, my question is, it seems to me that Eastern Catholic parish priests, then, would give Daniel a reading list similar to an Orthodox priest or monk such as our Father Averky - is that right? Aren't all these people 'on the same page' theologically, in prayer/liturgies, and in terms of following practices even such as fasting?

Maybe I'm just trying to say, since they say they are basically Orthodox too, their formation in faith, I'd imagine, would be Orthdox too.

Is this right?

[Byzcath1]

Eastern Rite Catholics,used to be part of Orthodoxy but certian groups of former Orthodox Communities recgonized the Authority of the Pope of Rome and came into communion with the Pope, we do have the Same Liturgy, Tradtiisons, Theological Approach, Eastern Saints, and Spirituality. The only differences is that we recognize the pope as the head of the universal catholic church. God Bless.

In Christ +
Daniel

you should visit www.byzantines.net/about (http://www.byzantines.net/about)

[Byzcath1]

Dear: Fr. A

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Ive looked into orthodoxy and i just cant except their view on the papacy, ive read some of the early fathers, that support the Western Idea of the papacy. As far was the Orthodox Spirituality.
I know what you mean, but as a byzantine catholic, which is akin to the orthodox church in every thing except a few major doctrines, i feel drawn to the Spirituality. I want to grow in it, because after i do my 4 years in the Marines, im going to apply to our Seminary. I myself pray the Chotki, not well but i try the best i know how.

Through the Theotokos
Daniel

[Fr John Wehling]

Daniel,

This is a big topic, and we won't resolve it here, but let me add a few things.

In the first centuries the Eastern Church did accept the Pope of Rome as the first among equals, but this does not amount to the later belief in papal primacy. Modern Roman Catholic scholars will themselves admit that the teaching that the Pope has authority throughout the Church as the "Vicar of Christ" or some such thing is a development and that it was not the view of any -- East or West, even of the Popes -- prior to Gregory the Great (died 604). They have no problem with this development, however, because the RC tradition now allows for the development of doctrine and embraces it. They really have to embrace such a teaching to uphold such things as papal primacy (defined as above) and the Immaculate Conception.

The Orthodox, on the other hand, have always maintained the older, traditional view of the Pope of Rome, which sees him as the first among equals or the elder brother. In fact, all of the ancient Patriarchates were ranked from first to fifth, but this did not destroy the collegiality of the Bishops (because all bishops, from the lowest to the highest, are truly equal) as much as it preserved good order in the Church.

Peace to you,
Fr John

[Catholic]

I am sorry if I started a discussion 'in the wrong direction' on this. I only meant to ask if - since the EC's consider themselves Orthodox in spirituality, as I've read on the net ("Orthodox in communion with Rome"), then any EC or EO would be recommending the same or similar spiritual resources to study. I wanted to know if the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics here (since I am neither) could tell me if I understand this correctly. The spirituality is the same, isn't it?

[Fr John Wehling]

Catholic,

Don't worry, we are all being quite amiable, I think. :>)

Since I am not Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic, I am not sure my answer I will get agreement from Daniel on this, but I will add my two cents worth, which is really a statement and another question.

First, the statement. For the Orthodox, our "spirituality" cannot be practiced or understood outside of the Church (meaning the Orthodox Church) because there is, no separation between faith and life, dogma and practice/praxis, etc. So to speak of "Orthodox Spirituality" is, to some degree, a misnomer. If we mean that phrase as simply descriptive of Orthodox practices of ascesis, prayer, participation in the Holy Mysteries (sacraments), etc., then okay. But if that description leads to a belief or an attempt to practice "Orthodox spirituality" outide of the Church (if it becomes prescriptive instead of descriptive, I guess you could say), then, as Fr Averky has pointed out, this is not okay because it is dangerous. It might very well lead one, for example, to think that they are "basically" Orthodox when they are still outside of the Church.

Now the question. Since Byzantine Catholic's are in communion with Rome, wouldn't they also accept other "spiritualities" besides "Orthodox spirituality" as good and helpful, say Carmelite or Ignatian? If so, then from an Orthodox point of view this would be problematic because in several ways these different spiritualities are in conflict with one another.

Forgive me, for I don't mean this to sound harsh or judgmental, only to be faithful to all spiritualities represented. :>)

Peace,
Fr John

[Byzcath1]

Yes Catholic, the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, Spirituality is identical this is because we do share the same spiritual patrimony with the Orthodox christians.

Through the Theotokos
Daniel

[Catholic]

Father John, Bless!
Thank you Father for your reply.

I don't think that the BC's 'take' any other point of view (Carmelite, etc) other than the Orthodox and it looks as if Daniel is saying here yes, the two are identical, Orthodox and EC's basically equal the 'same thing' -- the only quesition (which is the one sort of getting off on completely another subject,really) is ... do the Orthodox churches see the Eastern Catholics also as being truly IN the Orthodox church - and - therefore Orthodox? It seems that there's a good chance they do not. I see the Eastern Catholics saying: "We ARE Orthodox!- We are however in communion with Rome" and so now I will have to reread your answer to see what you mean - are the EC's not really Orthodox -- according to the Eastern Orthodox -- because they're not in the EO Church (even though in their own eyes they ARE EO?).

Is it the case that some Orthodox DO recognize these EC's and some do not, as being 'the same' as they are?

[Janice Chadwick]

Thank you, Fr. Averky, for your post. I always need those warnings, and I have a feeling that many of us can use them. I think that may especially be true for those of us who come from Protestant backgrounds (I was Southern Baptist before converting). It's very tempting to just wade in and start reading, and, of course, like you said, we want to go right to the most "spiritual" things. We're not used to getting permission from our spiritual father before we read these materials. I'm learning that I have to learn the basics of Orthodoxy first and then build up from there. I have the "Philokalia", but my priest has told me not to read that. I also have "Ladder of Divine Ascent" and "Way of the Pilgrim", but I'm not going to read either of them without Fr.'s permission to do so. It's about time to see what he thinks I should read for Nativity Fast. I haven't read much of the Church Fathers yet because I definitely need Fr.'s guidance on that.

[Byzcath1]

Fr. John, it would need to read quotes and writings from the early church fathers, that actually support Orthodoxys view of the papacy even before thinking of converting to Orthodoxy.

I have seen, a bunch of writings by the early fathers supporting the Roman View of the papacy, and i also have never see any scriptural evidence supporting orthodoxy's view.

I hope you can help me with this, thanks for the comments.

In Christ +
Daniel

[Xenia]

Hello everyone,

As a recent convert to Orthodoxy, with 50 years of fundamentalist protestantism behind me, I entered the Church with some Very False Assumptions. First of all, I thought that since I had been a believer for so long, and had worked so long as a Bible teacher and had read the Bible through so many times that I was quite advanced. Oh brother, was I ever wrong! And such a happy humbling I received. Not that I am yet humble.

It is true; reading the lives of the Saints is a good start. And why is that? Well, for me, I had no Orthodox mentors in my life growing up. I didn't know what it meant to be Orthodox, or what it looked like in daily practice. A little child doesn't read theology books, they watch their parents, godparents, and other faithful adults. I missed out on that and I have to start again as a little child. Reading the lives of the Saints helps me catch up.

I have a shelf of Orthodox books that I now realize are too hard for me. But I will say this; reading some of them, or trying to read them, showed me that I have a long, long way to go. It is both encouraging and discouraging.

Love,
Xenia

[Byzcath1]

I know the feeling, when i first started to actually learn about catholicism I went to EWTN on there Q&A forum and asked all sorts of questions, then when i go into the questions archive look at every question ive ever asked its amazing how little i knew and still how much i dont know.

In Christ+
Daniel

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Daniel,

Fr. Averky begs my pardon because of my own positive experience, as a non-Orthodox with The Way of a Pilgrim. I won't repeat it here but will say that the book teaches that Spirituality is in the living, not reading, and it about progressing spiritually, and for this an experienced Father regarding the practice of the Jesus prayer would be a good thing to have (I hear that crossing a two-way street without looking both ways, particularly when there's heavy traffic can be dangerous. Someone on the other side may shout to you that it worked for him and should be fine, go ahead and try it. Even so, I wouldn't recommend following his advice!)

Besides the other fine recomendations you've already had, I would recomend Unseen Warfare as edited by Nicodemus of the Holy MOuntain and revised by Theophan the Recluse, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

I recommend it because it started out historically as Spiritual Combat by the Counter-Reformation Italian Catholic priest Lorenzo Scupoli. St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (Athos, as you might know) saw its spritural benifits even though it was R. Catholic, and improved it by making it Orthodox. Later the Russian Orthodox Theophan the Recluse improved it even further.

You might even ask your own priest about it.

Yours,

Richard

P.s., Father Averky, no need to ask, spiritual direction is your field. --RL

[Byzcath1]

I dont believe Orthodox Spirituality can only be used with in the Orthodox Church, you can be attached to ignatian or fransican spirutality and not be a jesusit or fransican. Byzantine Catholics oringal patrimony is with the Orthodox Church, you cant take away our Traditions and Spirituality just because our "Alliences" switch to a different Patriarch.

In Christ+
Daniel

[Catholic]

Dear Richard Leigh,

I am curious regarding the Spiritual Combat/Unseen Warfare: didn't the Orthodox writers add sections on the Jesus Prayer but leave the other sections as written by Scupoli?
I will have to look it up. You've got me curious now! Have you read both versions?
I had heard of Unseen Warfare for years and never picked it up. Imagine my surprise, when I did so and thought to myself, "This looks like something out of a 'classical' type Roman Catholic...!" and then I found out "the rest of the story" as you describe, which I found so interesting. My RC friends had copies of Spiritual Combat, while my Orthodox friends had Unseen Warfare ... and it took me a long while before I realized the two were related.

I recall reading that it was the favorite book of St. Francis de Sales, who always had a copy in his back pocket!

Ok slightly off-topic here ... it's an interesting story, though, about the book's evolution!

[Catholic]

By the way -- in Fr. John's post, he cautions against studying and reading if one is not in the Orthodox church. But it would seem that Daniel's point is that he is indeed part of the Orthodox church.

[Arsenios]

Daniel writes:

"I don't believe Orthodox Spirituality can only be used with in the Orthodox Church, you can be attached to ignatian or fransican spirutality and not be a jesusit or fransican. Byzantine Catholics original patrimony is with the Orthodox Church, you can't take away our Traditions and Spirituality just because our 'Alliances' switch to a different Patriarch."

Daniel - The basic wall you will keep encountering is that 'Orthodox spirituality' is not something 'separate from' but 'found within' Orthodoxy... You cannot go to, say, an Orthodox monastery, and study what it is that the Orthodox monks 'do' there, and especially the 'more spiritual' ones, and from what you see these monks doing, and their accountings of what they are doing, then go somewhere else and 'do' what they 'do' and therefore be 'practicing' their 'spirituality'...

It simply doesn't work that way... Baptism into the Orthodox Church is the ONTOLOGICAL prerequisite to the practice of any kind of "spirituality" you might be observing from outside this communion. The spiritual practice of the Orthodox is quite simply not capable of being understood from outside of Her communion - You cannot approach Orthodox with your spiritual shopping cart [which seems to be what many Protestant churches are doing] and pick and choose which elements you wish to appropriate and which you wish to ignore... You will find that the beautiful flowers you cut and bring home will fade, droop and die, for they are cut off from their living root...

And anyone, and this includes any church, which communes outside the communion of the Orthodox Church, thereby takes himself or itself out of communion with Orthodoxy... And it doesn't matter that it serves the Divine Liturgy, wears black razas, is mitred, burns incense, and in every other way LOOKS Orthodox... Communion is the key... Without it, the rest is cut off... And communion with Rome is dis-communication Orthodoxy...

And I know that the Byzantine Catholics see themselves now as a bridge between the Vatican and the Orthodox... That after long years of being discriminated against by Rome, they now are finding and trying to define a new role in that communion, in that the Pope wishes the two lungs to re-unite under him... I do not think it can happen that way, but I appreciate your efforts...

[geo] Arsenios

[Fr Averky]

Beloved friends,

I am filled with gratitude to those fellow Orthodox Christians who not only clearly understood my words, but are now applying them to their lives.

Dear Daniel and C., to put it quite bluntly, there is no "Byzantine Catholic" spirituality. The entire concept of an Eastern Rite Catholicism is an anomaly, and is an insult to the traditions to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Byzantine Catholics are not Orthodox, and cannot share in its spiritual life other than by reading, and self-interpetation, and it is notable that they have no important spiritual works of their, because, in a sense, what could they talk about? They are not Catholics either, for by the Latins they are seen as an exotic fringe group whose use has been to try to entice Orthodox Christians to accept its Roman theological aberrations.

To say that Byzantine Catholics "are just like the Orthodox is a lie. For example, the Orthodox Church does not accept the inovation that the Pope of Rome is the infallible Christ on earth, and that even his opinions are to be seen as coming from the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church historically accepted the Pope as "First among equals," for while there were the ancient Patriarchates of the East-Antioch, Jerusalem Alexandria. Constantinople, the pope was the Patriarch of the West, and was accorded honor because its bishop's see was that of the Old capitol of Rome. When Christ ssaid to the Apostle Peter, "Thou art peter, and upon this rock I will build my church., the Latins construe this to mean that the "rock," petra, or "Peter" was named Pope. If one has knowledge of Greek, he can quickly ascertain, that Jesus Christ was not talking about the rock as meaning a person-Peter, but the rock of Peter;s confession when he had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Daniel, considering with reason, our Christian Faith is the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not that Peter was a Pope, but you see, that is what the Catholics have done-they have usurped the authority of Christ and handed it over to a man. To Orthodox Christians, it can make no sense, for it is completely antithetical to the reality of Christian existence.

Orthodox Christians firmly believe that Christ is the heqd of the Church, and he cannot give His authority to a sinfaul and carnal man. All Orthodox bishops are infallible, doer as long as they "rightly divide the word of the truth.

In the early centuries of conflicts and heresies, questions were oftwen brought to the pope, because being very muich a "third" party, he could look at situations dispassionately. This does not suppor the notion that in the early Church, the East ever considered the Pope to be the final oorSuipreme authority, but a voice of reason. Also, Popes too were deposed for unorthodoxy, and the bishop of Rome, Marcion almost hurled the Church into eternal heresy, but God did not permit.


Byzantine Catholics accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conceptioned, which the Pope define as being that the Virgin Mary was born without Original Sin in order to be the Mother of God. I remember the good sisters telling us in catechism that the Virgin never sinned because she could not sin.

Orthodox Christians firmly believe that the Mother of God was chosen bdcause she was, even at a tender age, completely asnd humbly obedient to God will and was so pure as to inspire awe. The Orthodox Church doesn not accept the concept of the Immaculate Conception for two good reasons: First, Orthodoxy does not accept that every person bears on his soul the sin of Adam, but is born into spiritual darkness until he is Baptized by water and the action*of the Holy Spirit, into the Light of the Faith. While noty inheriting Original Sin, all of mankind has inherited the result of the Fall; we have to toil, we wiil become sick, and we will die. More importantly, all of mankind has inherited the loss of innocence and purity of our First Parents, and have an inclinations towards evil. One reason death is so hard to bear is that it was not the origianl nature of man, but because of pride, he lost that gift. Everything would have been so different.

The second reason is that if the Virgin Mary was born without Original Sin, she would be in a sense, a dem-igodess, for she would not have really shared in our humanity of all after the Fall. This was to culminate in the Medieval "cult of the Virgin," where she was likened to Christ. This heresy reached its culmination in the idea thast She is "Co--Redemptrix,." and that all Graces from Jesus Christ come through her "The mediatrix of All Graces." Pope Paul John II wanted to declare that notion as a dogma of the Catholic Church, but fortunately, even his top theological advisors warned that such a proclamation would not only cause great dissension among Roman Catholics, but would be a scandal to the Orthodox and Protestants, dashing forever any hope of eventual union, so he abandoned the idea, although he firmly believes it to be true.


The Orthodox Church teaches that the Most Pure Mother of God was chosen by God because of her purity and virtues. Tradition tells us that the Archangel Gabriel was bringing to her the News of her wonderous service to God for the sake of Mankind, she had just read the Prophet Isaiah, in which it said that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin, and pondering this, she said to herself, "If only I could know who that pure Virgin might be, so that I could be her most humble handmaiden.." At that moment. the Angel appeared to her.

The beautiful verses for the Annunciation say:

Gabriel the Archangel was sent from heaven to announce to the Virgin the glad tidings of herconceiving; and coming to Nazareth he pondered in amazement this wonder. O how shall He who dwells in the heights, whom none comprehend, be born of Virgin? How shall He whose throne is heaven and whose footstool is earth be held in the womb of a woman? He upon whom the six-winged seraphim and many eyed cherubim cannot gaze has been pleased by a single word to be made flesh of this his creature. It s the Word of God who dwells within in her.Why then do I stand here and not say to the Maiden:: Hail, thou who art full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Hail Bride unwedded. Hail, Mother of Life: blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

and, more importantly:

The Angel.

Hail, O Lady, O most pure Virgin; hail thou vessel wherin God is contained, hail, thou candlestick of the Light, the reswtoration of Adam and the deliverance of Eve, holy Mouintain, shining sanctuary, the Bridal Chamber of immortality.

The Virgin


THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS PURIFIED MY SOUL AND SANCTIFIED MY BODY: it has made me a Temple that contains God, a Tabernacle divinely adorned, a Living Sanctuary. and the pure Mother of Life.

Daniel, this last verses says precisely the Orthodox view of the state of the Mother of God at the moment of the Annunciation.

She was born with the exact same humanity as all of us; she was notcleansed before her birth and made some extra special being. In her own right, she was a spotless Virgin who as a child had dedicated her whole being to God, and she never, olf her own will sinned her entire life in thought, word or deed. She could have, but she did not. So I repeat, She was not chosen before the Incarnation, hand picked and especially prepared; she was a singularly holy and pure person, made worthy by her obedience to the will of God.



At the descent of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon her, the soul and body Spirit were purified, in preparation to be the Mother of the Saviour. All the more wondrous for a person to so completely love God so as to be chosen to be the Mother of the Mesiah. When the Mother of God said "Yes," she said it for all of mankind and reedemed Adam by her obedience.

These are but two differences, Daniel, and there many;The Consecration taking place at the Words of Institution: the Gifts becoming the Body and Blood of Christ at the Epiclesis, the invoking and the subsequent coming down of the Holy Spirt, thus all Three persons are involved in the Eucharist, and so many more.

You can say to me, "but we Byzantine Catholics believe and do the same, " but realize that what you do is an indult from the Holy See, for the words of consecration and, importantly the use of unleavened bread was one of the divisive factors leading to the Great Schism in the first place.

All of this is exactly why sane and sensible Orthodox Christains would never desire to unite with Rome, for the sad history of the Uniates has been a bitter lesson. At first, our Patriarch would be accorded their rightful dignity of offic and would rule their local Churches, but not that much later, they would be included into the of the Curial offices, and would be expected to receive ordsers from the Cardinal in charge of Eastern Churches. In the Catholic Church, the Pope of Rome is The Bishop, and all others, even ordinaries have no rights as to expressing individual views or practises. Rome rules by a tightly run beuracrasy, and no one can have a mind of his own. In the Orthodox Church the bishop is the local spiritual authority, and it is derived from the Church, not a person.

When I was in high school, the Ruthenian Catholic bishop for the U.S. imposed some innovations, rather Latin, into his diocese. Not long after that, he was sent a letter and a plane ticket, ordering him to go to Rome. For an enire year, Daniel, he was confined in one small room with a typewriter and a limited amount of paper and envelopes, and could not mail his own letters. Every morning, he was escorted by a Swiss Guard to a chapel where heard Mass, then returned to his room. All meals were brouight to his room.

Finally, he was brought before ecclesiastical court and received a direectrive from the Pope that he was stripped of all episcopal authority over the Ruthenians, was deprived of his birthright as an Eastern Rite Catholic, and ended his days, the Latin auxilliary bishop in a Midwestern Catholic diocese, where he was given little to do.

This does not make Rome very attractive to us., Daniel.

Roman Catholics, totally controlled by a monolithic system have no clear view of the individuality-yet unity found in Orthodox Churches.

So, Daniel and Catholic, you may read all the Fathers of the Orthodox Church, especially the early ones, and I assure you, you will not have the same understanding we do.

When I was first a novice, almost thirty yuears ago, I was given the book "Unseen Warfar3e, and read it, and I thought I understood it verhy well. During the cold of the Winter of last year, I opened it again, and to my utter amazement, I realized that now, after years and years of trials, sorrows, sufferings, temptations,.*many prayers, tears at being granted, by God's mercy, to see the depths of my pride and sinfulness, the book came alive for me, and I knew exactly the meaning of the passages. They are indeed profound words for anyone who might read them, but but the depth of those words are not given to those who have not experienced them.

We in the West see matters only in a rather black-white legal, manner and truth must be legislated in order to be believed.. Thus the necessity of Papa;ldeclaration of dogmas, which "legally" and spiritually binds its faithful to believe that dogma whether they might or not. Orthodoxy does not like to "dogmatize" things, realizing that the Faith is a deep Spiritual Myustery. which God reveals to those who love Him and their neighgbor. Accepting the Pope's proclaimed dogma*does not involve a change of heart, nor does it bring one to a personal understanding of the mercy of God or of ones' self.

The Orthodox Churches does not have the idea of "merits," even the Immacuate Conception was made possible through the "merits" of Jesus Christ, and her spiritual authority to help Christians derives from her standing near the cross of her Divine Son, and receiving sort an overflow of the merits he had recivied from His salvific Passion. We believe the Mother of God to be higher than the angels, who standing at the throne of her Divine Son, begs Him to show mercy to us sinners-she did not need to collect "merits," for from her own purity and godliness,she is full of grace. Thus do we Orthodox cry out to her, "Most Holy Mother of God save us"-meaning not that she can grant salvation along with Christ, but we are asking her to come to our aid, like a person whop is drowning drowning who is shouting for someone to save him.

From this idea of merits came the notion of Indulgences, for the saints were so holy, and had earned so many merits, when they died, all the merit left over has been collected into a heavenly bank account. The Pope alone has the authority to dispense from this vast account, granting days or even years. It was the unabashed sale of indulgences in order to build St.Peter's in Rome that was the final straw for the Reformers., especially Martin Luther. The sale of Grace really sounds strange , if you think of it, for it shows not a single iota of love or mercy, but grants freedom from Purgatory for a price.

I have taken much of everybody's time, but I felt it incumbent upon me to mke it quite clear that the Church of Rome and the Orthodox are really so similar. In some appearances perhaps, but in the heart of it, not at all.

While Roman Catholic seem to enjoy Orthodox writings, now, when I look at Catholic authors, I see that catholics have a very good idea of what it is to be "religious," but even the Church does not guide them onto the road to a "spiritual" life, because, for one thing, it is highly individual. The present spirit in Roman Catholicism is the opposite of the Uniates; Roman Catholics now mimic Protestants, even down to their phraseologuy, and more, and more, mentality, for their "individuality: depends on "freedom of choice," and that new personal freedom goes so far as the right to accept the words of the Pope or not in regards to faith and morals. The pope could name five thousand ultra-conservative Cardinals, but the contemporary Catholic world, tired of what they now see as twenty five years of oppressive conservative rule, are in no mood to listen. Pope John Paul II has no idea how the papcy has losts it grip on the hearts and souls of a large percent of the faithful, especially in North America. So Catholics ard no longer firm Catholics, but a strange bird half-Catholic, half Protestant, but not good at being either just as Byzantine Catholics are semmingly half Orthodox, but more than half Catholic, but not really either as well.

I was a Catholic for many years, and as a child, said my prayers in front of a large potrait of Pope Pius XII, who was my hero, known and loved by some members of my family. I have come along a very different path. In my high school years, I was an ardent Vatican II Catholic and was an enthusiastic ecumenist. It took my entering the Catholic seminary to completely change mhy mind.

I have not written these words to insult or hurt you, but in tody's New Age religiosity, there are far too many attempts to de-emphasize any differences of beliefe, blanketing them under the stock phrase,
"Actually, we all really in the end worship one god, right?" No, we don't, what a forc Christianity would be were it to be united in Truth and love, as is the Muslim world united in anger during these times. Historians tell us that the Muslims won over so many Christians, for so many thousands, branded as heretics, preferred paying taxes to the Muslim to persecution by the "Roman." In time, because of their initial lack of orthodoxy, they gave up their faith and declared for Allah..

May God preserve and save us all.

Fr. A.

[Catholic]

Oh... Arsenios writes "Communion with Rome is dis-communication Orthodoxy" (He means 'this dis-communicates itself from Orthodoxy' it seems).

My goodness - so this means that all those people who say they're 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' and who regard themselves AS Orthodox - are NOT regarded as 'really Orthodox' at all - by the Eastern Orthodox not in communion with Rome.

No one really wants to say it, perhaps, but would it be accurate to say that Orthodox think Eastern Catholics do not have 'the real thing'? It seems that is precisely what Arsenios just wrote, and I guess I am kind of shocked, although I guess I shouldn't be.

I personally am just trying to understand the situation ... being neither EC nor EO but having an interest in the Divine Liturgy and Eastern Christian prayer.

[Byzcath1]

Dear: Fr. A,

Slava Isusu Christu!

I do thank your for you Point of view expressed.
I have been thinking about Orthodxy alot, especially greek orthodoxy, but i personally have never found any writings of the Eastern Church Fathers, for supporting Orthodoxys view on the papacy. Or any Scriptural Support. Ive searched but never found, can you help me? As for my spirituality, what kind of spirituality would i have since its not orthodox and especially not roman catholic?

In Christ +
Daniel

[Arsenios]

Catholic writes:

"Oh... Arsenios writes "Communion with Rome is dis-communication Orthodoxy" (He means 'this dis-communicates itself from Orthodoxy' it seems)."

Hi C -

'Twas a flubber fer sure... I meant to write: "Communion with Rome is dis-communion with Orthodoxy." Sigh... Nor did I see it on pre-post... Sorry for the typo...

"My goodness - so this means that all those people who say they're 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' and who regard themselves AS Orthodox - are NOT regarded as 'really Orthodox' at all - by the Eastern Orthodox not in communion with Rome."

Sorry to have engaged your pique... Communion is key - Rome long ago separated herself from the communion of Churches that is Christ's Church, and proudly set herself forth as THE Church... Thereby taking herself out of the Church Christ created... For that Church is a communion of Churches...

"No one really wants to say it, perhaps, but would it be accurate to say that Orthodox think Eastern Catholics do not have 'the real thing'? It seems that is precisely what Arsenios just wrote, and I guess I am kind of shocked, although I guess I shouldn't be."

You perhaps should be... Communion is the key... Not doctrine, not practice, not similarities and differences - These all have their place, but Communion is the core issue... And the Byz Catholics in communion with Rome are NOT in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

"I personally am just trying to understand the situation ... being neither EC nor EO but having an interest in the Divine Liturgy and Eastern Christian prayer."

Well then you would seem to be coming to the Orthodox Church as if it were a supermarket, maybe wishing to take home an icon, and perhaps a Liturgy, and maybe certain prayer practices you can glean from Her...

We do not go to anyone outside our communion for instruction in the faith... But every one of the non-Orthodox churches in the west seems to do so... We are kind of like the new kids on the block, for we are rapidly growing in the US, and everyone seems to want to come by and see what the big deal is, and the big deal is Christianity... Radical Christianity... For that is what Christianity IS... Radical... Departure from self and the concerns of the flesh and this world, and a turning toward God in Spirit and in Truth [worship]...

I mean, are you really just here to shop for prayer and a Liturgy? Both are vast and deep in Orthodoxy...

They are not separable from Her...

If you reach out and take a handful and walk away with them, you will not find them to be what you saw where they were alive in the faith that is the communion of Orthodox Churches...

That communion is the key, the living matrix of faith in which the liturgy and prayer are the beautiful flowers that they are...

You just cannot cut them and expect them to live, dear Catholic...

Have you a name? I see you like to use mine, and I would sure like to use yours... And yet you do not seem to be willing to share it...

[geo] Arsenios

[Fr. David B. Sedor]

Many thanks to Fr. Averky who, as always, expresses what the Orthodox Church believes with "no holds barred!"

Actually, I was waiting for someone to correct the notion that there is such a thing as an "Orthodox in communion with Rome." This self-description of Eastern, or Byzantine, Catholics began, I understand, in Canada a few years ago, and has now spread "south of the border" to the U.S.

I'm currently at the end of doctoral studies at a Catholic university. I mention this only because I want the list to understand that I know whereof I speak when I compare the basic approaches to theology of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. In a word, the two approaches are not compatible. The RCs see theology as something to be "figured out" by the "recta ratio", human reason rightly applied. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is an experiential faith -- or, more correctly, an experiential way of life. Where RCs "figure out" what God is trying to say to them, Orthodox receive it through the "nous", a notoriously difficult word to define in English -- perhaps "the eyes of the heart" comes close.

With such a fundamental difference, at the very foundations of theology, it's really no wonder that so often we tend to see just the "surface" differences -- celibacy vs. married clergy, filioque, and papal primacy vs. papal power. The foundational differences are much more difficult to quantify and explain... it's so much easier to talk about why priests should allow to marry if they so choose.

This is not to say that those "surface" differences are unimportant, but I see them more as symptoms of the underlying differences, rather than problems to be solved in themselves.

I grew up in a Carpatho-Russian parish which had whole-heartedly embraced the Latinizations forced upon the CR people by Rome. I was in high school before I learned that I was of the same faith as my two Greek friends. All throughout my childhood and teen years, I never heard opf the Eastern Fathers, I never even heard the Paschal sermon of St. John Chrysostom on Pascha, since this "just wasn't done." Perhaps this experience scarred me; perhaps it doesn't allow me to see what possible purpose Eastern-rite Catholicism offers other than to serve as an enticement to unite with Rome.

Which leads me to my final point. RCs see unity as subsisting in the pope, period. Orthodox, on the other hand, see unity as residing in the faith as lived by her believers, especially when we all commune from the same chalice. We are one -- despite the mistaken assertions of those who see "Greek" Orthodoxy and "Russian" Orthodoxy and "Serbian" Orthodoxy, etc., etc. as "proof" that we are "hopelessly divided."

So, I'm sorry, Daniel and ByzCath1 and Catholic, but Eastern Catholics are NOT Orthodox, in spite of what they claim. At this point in time, there's no such thing as an "Orthodox united with Rome" -- the terms are mutually exclusive.

I hope this clarifies, and I apologize for being somewhat blunt... my intention was not to hurt, but to make clear.

In Christ, Fr. David

[Fr John Wehling]

Daniel and Catholic,

I do not have time tonight or tomorrow to engage fully with the issues here, so just a few words.

First of all, a correction. I had linked the rise of papal primacy with Gregory the Great, but as I glance at a few things here it seems I was incorrect. Kelly, for one, sees the pope's themselves putting forth claims to primacy as early as the mid-4th century, with Leo the Great making these claims explicit. So I stand corrected.

Daniel, you ask for quotes, which I do not have time to hunt down right now; I am sorry. But let me say this: we must be careful not to proof-text the Fathers, just as we are careful of this in regard to the Scriptures. If, for example, some of the Fathers speak of a primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and yet all throughout these first centuries of the Church the primacy we see is one of honor, not jurisdiction (I'm not completely happy with this distinction, but for the sake of discussion I use it), then obviously we cannot understand primacy in the RC sense as being in effect, even if quotes from that time can be mustered in its defense.

Yes, the Pope was looked to for guidance and wisdom, but this in no way amounts to jurisdictional primacy as later defined by the RCC. The Church, in times of heresy, etc., met in Council, and together the Bishops sought the will of God. Even at the 4th Council, when Pope St. Leo's Tome was accepted as Orthodox, it was closely evaluated by those present to see if it was in keeping with what the Bishops knew to be Orthodox and true (i.e the teaching of St Cyril). And it need not be pointed out that some Pope's have been heretics and condemned as such by Ecumenical Council's.

All of this to repeat what I said earlier, which is that the doctrine of papal primacy as it has been defined conciliarly by the RCC since Vatican I is not an ancient teaching or practice of the Church, but a later development. Even if one can find quotes scattered here and there that can be strung together to "support it," history and Tradition simply do not bear it out.

So, Catholic, as to your question, the direct answer is, as has already been stated, no, the Orthodox Church does not see BC's or anyone else that is not in communion with Her as Orthodox. This is not -- I repeat, NOT -- a judgment about anyone's salvation, only a simple fact: if a person does not commune in an Eastern Orthodox Church then they are not Orthodox. And if they are in communion with the Pope of Rome then they cannot commune in an Orthodox Church. Perhaps someone who is not in communion with us will insist that he or she is Orthodox, but if so they are using the term differently than I am using it here.

Again, please do not think that I am being harsh or hateful or even judgmental, for I only intend to answer your questions from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Now I must end this.

Peace to you,

Fr John

[Catholic]

Father, Bless!

Yes, Fr. David, it is clear from what you say, and I prefer your approach to that of the personalized one of the above poster who seems to assume he knows all about me and accuses me of 'taking home a Liturgy or shopping at a supermarket for prayer'...

I have been reading on a Byzantine board for about a year, and as far as I knew, they were Orthodox, as they said they were. No, I never knew that in the eyes of the Orthodox they weren't at all Orthodox.

I appreciate being told the truth as one sees it, but I appreciate it being done in a spirit of civility, not insult - something posters on this board seem to have to take some classes in, it would seem, so they can learn how to be courteous and not insulting. I have noticed this over and over again on this board reading over the past few months (before I posted anything, I never thought I would do so, simply because of the all too frequent abrasiveness of people here).

I am grateful for all who have helped me to see this new point of view about 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'- it's all new to me!
Sincerely,
Elizabeth

[Fr Averky]

Dear Friends,

Richard is correct that the value of spiritual books is not so much in the reading, but in the living. This is very important, and I thank him for his clarification. However, dear Professor, you again misread my thoughts-I was begging your pardon, not for your apparent "positive" attitude ( as opposed to my negative one?), but knew that I was about to disagree with you.

In no way could I have a negative attitude about that classic guide, but for me, my "positive" advise was for its guidlines, as it were, in that I caution either a non-Orthodox person and especially one who is new to Orthodoxy to not attempt to start on a dangerous spiritual without knwledge or guidance.

Profesor McBride, we have our differences, because our view of our own Orthodoxy comes from different angles. You are a man of the world, well-educated, a long time, and I would think ,respected educator, and are accustomed to being the one who is doing the teaching, and perhaps you feel you know enough about most things. to make a sound and intelligent comment or opinion. You are a strong man, a very big man, a man of great self-confidence, and you have "take charge" type of abilities . Your life has been that of a good husband, loving father and pious Orthodox layman, and your perspectives, are thus going to be necessarily of those in your state of life

By a promise I made to God, I made a different choice. and as I mentioned to you, for many years, I have lived in an atmosphere much different than yours; not just because I am in a monastery, but in a place in which our entire life revolves around the Church. This does not make me better than you, or more spiritual than you, and on most levels, more knowledgeable than you, but here there is a difference.

Like all laypersons, your primary concerns are for the salvation of your self and your family, and your focus for spirituality besides your home, is of course, your local parish, and the person responsible for your soul is your parish priest.

Our situation here is muich different. Like one of our hieromonks once said, "I have no family of my own, and no children, and I now have many families, and many children. I am sure that Fr John will agree, that what a*priest says, and what a layman says, of course is going to have a different impact,either for good or bad, than that of a layman.

Thus, as I have said many times before, when I say something abour a particular book, the Jesus prayer, or any other aspect of Orthodox chuirh life, I must be clear in what I say and what I mean. Thus have I gotten upset when people have twised or misunderstood my words, and went from there. I have always endeavored to base my answers,comments, or advice upon the knowledge and experience of many who have gone before me.

One of the main purposes of this monastery has been missionary endeavors, particularly by the printed word. However, like all monasteries, we have an annual steady stream of people in verious spiritual states or having particular problems and needs, and we, in our poor way, relying upon God's mercy, help them as we can. If you could stay a year or two with us, my dear Richard, you would be amazed at the people who walk onto these grounds. Once, a group of us began to relate incidents caused by people who have been through here, some on their way to the mad house-literally. We figured if we had put them down into a journal, we would be on the 50th volume. If you come, and come, perhaps we can ask you to use your spiritual knowledge and wisdom to help some of them, and if you would like, I can give several people your e-mail address.

When dealing with so many suffering people, it is absolutely a must that our advice, our suggestions, the books we recommend, be fitting for that particular person's needs. What might help open the door to salvation for one person, could cause great spiritual damage to another. Over the years, we have had to deal with countless people, who, having jumped right away to readings or excercises way beyond their spiritual capacity either became haughty "experts, advising us on the spiritual life, or were just a mess

Dr. McBride, one thing you and I have in common, we have strong wills, and are firmly set in our Orthodoxy, and we have been Orthodox long enough to have much of its ethos in our our hearts. But so many people, who are new, or who are perhaps looking at Orthodoxy for the first time, need be approached with love and caution. Thus, what is positive and helpful in your own experience, might not be for other

Let me give you a for instance. You are an ordained Subdeacon, what if the bishop might decide to ordain you a deacon, or give you a responsible position in the diocese, and a person, with whom you have conversed many times, and even knew casually, called or wrote the dicese and told them that you are a proud, arrogant know-it all and want to be ordained for glory, not for service to God, that you are not humble, and are burned up, because your great "worth" as a Subdeacon is not being utilized, and that given even a little authority, you would soon be bossing the pastor around, you would be rather upset. don't you agree? it has been known to happen. And you know something Mr McBride, I was a bishop's secretary for three years, and I can tell you this-it happens very often, and it does not even have to be true, as I am sure it is not true about you. The devil is clever and can fool even holy bishops!

Dear Daniel is Byzantine Catholic, and as he just said, he has the freedom to read Orthodox sources, yet become attached to the spirituality to St. Francis, which you know is not possible for you and me, because you and I know that could cause a lot of confusion and could be very destructive. So, that is why I feel, not personally, but from having witnessed too many young people crash and burn, cannot, and will not suggest a book like The Way Of A Pilgrim, precisely because, Daniel at this point in his life, and he read it weekly if he wishes, but he cannot at this time-live it.

We must always keep in mind, that what we offer as help, if it is the wrong help, and we lead another into spiritual danger, we will answer for it on the day of judgement. I have far too much to answer for already, and I do not want to have to answer for another.

This, Fr. John will tell you, is one of the heaviest aspects of the heavy burden which is the Cross of the priesthood. As we are the "Fathers" of souls, our advice, our concern, or ideas, or beliefs, what we say, how we say it . effects on the lives and souls of others, and we are all too painfully aware of. that, and fear for our souls, lest we do or say the wrong thing. You do not have that responsibility of course, as a priest, but you do as an Orthodox Christian.

You are entitled to your opinons, and in most respects, you alone are responsible for them. My opinion have to be based upon not just reading and "understanding' but by having lived with good and holy monks of many years, who by their wisdom, suffering, patience and love taught me more than a million books, and which no parish or parish priest, no matter how excellent his sermons might be, could ever offer what the life in a monastery does.

Most of our original old Fathers are gone now, but what I know about the life, ethos, praxis and mind of the Church., I received from heroic old men who had lived through the terror of the Revolution, one watching as he was held to the ground as he saw his house, with his wife and children burned, and never forgot them sceaming his name-one who held his wife and each of his children helplessly watch as they died of starvation in his arms. One old Grandam whose sons were a deacon and a priest, also was in a camp in Siberia, and after pleading even a crimb of bread for her dying children, and after they died, she managed to escape-and walked by foot from Siberia to Paris! There she met her second husband and came to live here, near a monastery.

Dr. McBride, for two years, our Brotherhood lived on a soup made from tree bark and grasses. None of those people had to read a book about patience and long-suffering.I cannot tell you how tenderly ,lovingly, and patiently they treated a group of new American converts, who had read all the books, and who knew so much more than a bunch of simple old peasant. My next doo neigbor was an old Ukrainian who frequently was knocking on my door, bringing me an apple, a can of juice. some soda, an icon, or some other little gift.

Dear Dr. McBride, I am in hopes that you will understand me a little better. You and I could bicker to the end of time, and I am sure we would always make up, for I will never stop caring for you and praying for you. But perhas the time for me is growing short, and when I give a suggestion from my heart, not concerned with the "educating" of a person, or not desiring to limit him, having concern as to the salvation of his soul and my responsibility to him as priest, it pains me.when I have so many times given loving advice from many years of practise andl iving experience and from "masters" of the monastic and Orthodox art," only to have some one come behind me, say, basically, "Yes, yes, burt you know, you really don't have to listen to Fr. Averky, he lives in a hothouse atmosphere and does not know the realities of life. We are out here, and we can tell what it really is all about"

. And they mightr be right, but in the end, it is counter productive and causes confusion to the reader. This does mean that I am the only one who can say anything , but when someone tells another that my words are to be taken in a Negative manner, while his are Positive, and always surmises and tells others what I meant to say, knowing nothing of the kind, and readily dismisses any of my explanations to him, bvut persists in his opinion, then he is responsible to what happens to that person before God. and for me as well.

Maybe from now on, it would be better for me to sit at your feet and be fed by the spoon of your superior intellect, better education, and obvious spiritual understanding. I will put our souls into your hands.

Friends-listen only to Dr. McBride's words. for he is right, I do know anything.

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Daniel,

As this thread has progessed, it has been made clear that at this point you are going through that phase of exploration, which most of us did when we were young. I am sorry, but from what you have told us, I will not suggest anything to you, as I have not so far. Of course, you are free to read whatever books the community might suggest.
You are not serious, and when the day comes when you will really need God, your heart will be in the right place, and I am sure that will happen.. I think you to be a good man, and I am happy that you are interested in learning more about Christianity. As we have beren telling you, Christianity to us is a way of life, not something we "know."

The most important thing for you to learn and concentrate on is to love God with your whole heart, and importantly, your neighbor as yourself. You have been a Marine-everyone has to be one of your "Buddies," as your understand that word in the Corps.

Read all you want, but know that God does not hear you when you are reading, but He is right next to you when you are praying. Praying is our spiritual oxygen, and without it, we are spiritually dead.

Be assured of my sincere best wishes, and my warm prayers for your salvation. If ever I can help you, you are free to contact me.

In Christ,

Fr. Averky

[Fr Averky]

Daniel,

I just now read your response, and before all, I make a complete turn around, and would be happy to discuss all of this with you at length To contact me, go to the left column, click on my name-go to my profile, click on "private message." I do not want to bore these good people any further.

I await your good response.

In Christ, Averky

[Loretta]

Father Averky,
I'm confused as to what you said


When Christ said to the Apostle Peter, "Thou art peter, and upon this rock I will build my church., the Latins construe this to mean that the "rock," petra, or "Peter" was named Pope. If one has knowledge of Greek, he can quickly ascertain, that Jesus Christ was not talking about the rock as meaning a person-Peter, but the rock of Peter's confession when he had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Daniel, considering with reason, our Christian Faith is the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not that Peter was a Pope, but you see, that is what the Catholics have done-they have usurped the authority of Christ and handed it over to a man. To Orthodox Christians, it can make no sense, for it is completely antithetical to the reality of Christian existence.

Please let me tell you what I read of your remark. Christ said "You are Peter (Rock) and upon what you have said (which was revealed by the Father alone) I will build my church".

Are you saying that Peter's (or Rock's) utterance was the Rock? Perhaps my confusion is understanding in why Christ would renamed someone and then identify what that person said by the same word. If the Father revealed the Christ's identity to Peter in answer to Christ's question of "Who do they say I am", does that not indicate the Father had chosen Peter from among the other apostles?

What would then be the purpose of using the same name for both person and what that person said? I don't know Greek so excuse my example: Why wouldn't Christ have then said "I change your name to George (or another name) and what you have said will be the Rock (Peter) on which I will build my church".

I hope someone can explain this further.
Loretta

[Herman Blaydoe]

I dont believe Orthodox Spirituality can only be used with in the Orthodox Church, you can be attached to ignatian or fransican spirutality and not be a jesusit or fransican.

First of all, Orthodox spirituality can only be experienced within the totality of the communing Orthodox Church. Secondly, Orthodoxy teaches that there is much that is harmful and untrue in Franciscan and Ignatian spirituality. We really do not recommend it at all. Therein lies the difference between the Byzantines and the Orthodox.

I also have had some difficulty with the basic Byzantine premise that the Pope is the boss, but we really don't pay much attention to him. How can this be? I have some sensitivity to the issue belonging to a jurisdiction that fled enmasse from Byzantine Catholicism into the arms of the Holy Orthodox Church.


do thank your for you Point of view expressed. I have been thinking about Orthodxy alot, especially greek orthodoxy, but i personally have never found any writings of the Eastern Church Fathers, for supporting Orthodoxys view on the papacy.

I would humbly submit that you mut not have looked very hard, or else you have simply accepted Catholic misrepresentations of what was said. I can point you in the direction of many Orthodox sources that tell a very different story, Are you at all familiar with the writings of Abbe Guettee? He was a Catholic historian/cleric who was assigned the task of historically "proving" the authority of the Papacy. Unfortunately for the Vatican, the answer he came up with was not the anwer that they were looking for. I have yet to see a comprehensive Catholic rebuttal beyond one attempt to discredit one minor point, and using the reasoning that "if this is wrong, how can you accept any of the rest of it?" I can provide a link if you are interested to both sources.

Simply Herman

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,


dear Professor, you again misread my thoughts-I was begging your pardon, not for your apparent "positive" attitude ( as opposed to my negative one?), but knew that I was about to disagree with you.

No offense but I did understand you. I didn't say your appology was for any alleged positive attitude of mine but for the positice experience I'd had with the book Wat of a Pilgrim particularly my experience, as a non-Orthodox, with the Jesus Prayer. For all that you were about to disagree with me. I was posting to withdraw disagreement from my end. The parable of successfully crossing a busy two way street corner without looking both ways not making one an advisable fellow to follow was about me and my experience. I cautioned following your experienced advice. That should, BTW, amount to "pardon granted" with a "pardon me, rather," thrown in.

Sorry about the misunderstanding

& Not-a-Professor
(sorry about that one too),

Richard

[Photini]

"Could any of you recommend any book to me on Orthodox Spirituality? I'm looking for some more things to read."

Hi Daniel,

When I finally buckled down to covert, I asked this exact question to a certain Abbott who was visiting the nearby monastery I frequent. He wrote down a small list for me, and I kept it. I will share it with you also.

1) biography of St. Seraphim of Sarov
2) biography of St. Silouan the Athonite
...and 3 books by the Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos
a) Orthodox Spirituality
b) The Mind of the Orthodox Church
c) Life After Death

He also advised me to read the lives of the saints. He cautioned me to shy away from 'newer' books, especially ones written by converts. If I remember correctly, I ordered all of these books online from St. Nektarios Press.

Of all the reading I've done thus far, if I've learned anything, it's from reading the lives of the saints. And there are so many of them, that there is a lifetime of reading available. I hope this helps.

Take care,
photini

[Janice Chadwick]

I would just reiterate what Fr. Averky said. The best thing for those of us who are Orthodox to get advice from our own priest/spiritual father as to what we should be reading. He knows us and where we are at in our spiritual walk. It is my understanding that a spiritual father doesn't give the same advice to each person. His advice is geared to that specific person. It is much like being a parent. Parents have to treat each child differently because each child is unique. What works with one child may be the totally wrong thing for another child.

At the very least, if you are attracted to a certain book and are tempted to read it, ask your priest/spiritual father for permission to do so. If you read books that you are not ready for, you can be very tempted to try to do these things yourself and get into a lot of trouble if you are not doing it under the guidance of your spiritual father.

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Chist
Richard Lei


I ask prayers from our community-I have been extremley ill, and I can see that it has effected my thinking. First, I thought that it was Richard McBride who had posted, and we had had our usual crossing of swords, so my answer of course would make no sense to you, although my feelings about some comments obviously concerns me very much.

I am in hopes that you and Prof. McBride accept the fact that everyone on this message board is important to me, and I am concerned for the salvation of each and every on of you. Daniel and Elizabeth were perhaps offended by my seemingly harsh words, but as you can see, they have been seriously mislead. When I told Daniel that the notion that BCs are virtually the same as Orthodoxy. with the exception of the Pope, it is a serious lie.

Daniel made it quite clear as to his idea of spirituality, first looking for Orthodox spirituality, and on the other hand, he says he can love the spirituality of St. Francis-we who are Orthodox know that we could not think of having devotion to Catholic saints, St. Francis, especially. Poor Elizabeth, for she is a concerned and very sincere person, and she believed what some people on the internet are passing off as truth. As a loyal Roman Catholic, she of course believe what fellow members of her Church would tell her. And since they are, there are things going on.

In "Orthodoxx Tradition," a publication of St. Gregory Palamas Monastery in Etna, CA, there is an article about an awards ceremony honoring the head of the Old Calendar Rumanian Orthodox. An American diplomat made a most interesting remark, Orthodoxy is to be the Church of the 21st Century, because after years of oppresion, Orthodox countries are at last free, and there is a resurgance everywhere. As it grows stronger, it will be a great spiritual force in the world.

The Vatican , which has always wanted to absorb Orthodoxy in order to make even more firm its influence in the world, has begun an assault on Orthodox Churches in many ways. As we have been told, Byzantine Catholics are now calling themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome." In Moscow, parishes with Orthodox names are cropping up, one calling itself "The reigning Mother of God Orthodox Church," a clever ruse, and an insult to Orthodoxy, because The Reigning Mother of God Icon appeared in the suburbs of Moscow at the time of the Revolution, and has been considered to be reigning over Holy Russia until she was to be free, and now she is.


With sincere apologies to Daniel and Elizabeth, Fr. Alexey Young, noted author and now a hieromonk, has written a book entitled "The Rush to Embrace," in which he cautions Orthodox not to be too hasty in accepting the idea that there are two "Sister Churches," Rome and the Orthodox., which is being pushed by ecumenists. The Churches of Greece, of Alexandria, Antioch, Russia, Rumania,Serbia, and so on are Sister Churches, for they hold the same Orthodox Truth. Rome cannot be a sister to them because of too many differences to list here, some of which I have mentioned.

I was trying to make the point that as a priest, each and every one of your souls is important to me, and I do not want to see any member bring spiritual harm to another. I understand that this is a message board, so I cannot and would not try to stop any one's opinion. Too often, men who once were ministers or pastors count the time they were not Orthodox as giving them teaching authority, and many bring with them their views as to what the church to be. Orthodox Churches have had too many bitter desputes with know-it-all converts, who "are going to teach those Orthodox what the Church is all about," for they are just their swarthy and quarrelsom inferiors. There is a former Episcoplaian priest who was a miniature of the "Elder" in Boston, down to his head movements and way of speaking. He first left that group and came back to us, then when a small number of people broke from us because we decided to opren the possibility od negotiating with Moscow, he left withj them, then he left them and has put himself under some obscure but very fanatical zealot Old Calendar bishop. Years ago he said to me, "If there really was a Branch method of viewing the Churdch, Anglicans would be the branch with intelligence and taste." I replied, your people are intelligent enough to harbour any heresy in order to maintain good appearance and be in good taste-you have no integrity." He said, ."I am Orthodox," and I replied, "No, not really-this just another phase for you."

On another thread I asked an Evangelical Christian to explain some of the more popular terms after he had spent some time in barraging Orthodox members of the board with a multitude of questions, only revealing a little of what he believes. For this I was accused of having had a "tantrum." Peerhaps it is part of my strict Catholic upbringing, because when people are questioning others without telling them their side, but only ask, then attack, I lose patience with their unfair approach, and in this case, I decided to turn the tables. Then a fellow Orthodox Christian rather belittled.me, saying that I had had a "tantrum," while he, like Owen in his great humility, takes a great pleasure of being dismissive of others. It is such a problem for us who came from from Western Churches, for we approach the Truth of the Faith as an "educational" item, thinking that if we are well read, and perhaps have even taught others, we "know" Orthodoxy It needs to be firmly said that until what knowledge we have gathered decends into the heart, and all matters are seen from the heart of a Chriswtian, our kowledge is limited. to amny convertsa thinhk thatd they have so much to "give," while they need to be shiniong examplesw of love for God and their neighbor-this is the highest and best missionary effort possible.

Richard, you always try to be a gentleman.

I hate having to explain myself so often, but too many people, not as well-versed in Orthodoxy as they think themselves to be, and in their sincere efforts to help, could unwittingly mislead someone. I do not mind people not agreeing with me, but some have been rude and disrespectful not to my person, but to my priesthood., and I am not talking about you

Dear fellow members, let all of us be painfully aware of our responsibility before God to care for the souls of those who come to us. Almost all questions are honest and sincere' recently, we have had trying times, and have been less than kiind to each, and I accept that I have been the worst.

Things are not well for me health wise, and every day I think that I need to leave Monachos behind to make some important decisions,
but so many of you have come too me, that you have become a great comfort to me.

I pray that our aim will be the same-to lead each other to heaven. God bless,

Fr. A.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Xenia:

could you tell us a bit about your progression towards and resons for acceptance of Orthodoxy?

the seeker

[Arsenios]

George Arsenios Blaisdell had written to Elizabeth:


"Well then you would seem to be coming to the Orthodox Church as if it were a supermarket, maybe wishing to take home an icon, and perhaps a Liturgy, and maybe certain prayer practices you can glean from Her..."

I apologize.

To Elizabeth, and to the list.

This was an insulting remark designed to inflame, rather than heal, and has no place either on this list or in my soul, and certainly not your heart.

Elizabeth, I am sorry.

Please forgive me.
[geo] Arsenios

[Byzcath1]

Dear: Fr. A

Slava Isusu Christu!

I hope and i pray that God Heals your physical illnesses. As for my spirituality, i will continue to grow in my "Byzantine Spirituality"

as directed by my Spiritual Fathers, thanks for your thoughts on that topic. As for the "Orthodox in communion with rome" i dont know who said that if i did i didnt relize it but i know were not Orthodoxy in commmunion with rome. To say were (byzantines)an insult to Orthodoxy and Catholicism, wouldnt then the Western Rites of Orthodoxy be an Insult to Orthodoxy and Catholicism also?

In Christ +
Daniel

[Herman Blaydoe]

To say were (byzantines)an insult to Orthodoxy and Catholicism, wouldnt then the Western Rites of Orthodoxy be an Insult to Orthodoxy and Catholicism also?

I think not, since the few Orthodox parishes that celebrate a "western" rite were never Catholic to begin with, they were Episcopalian and were never mislead to believe that they could "remain Episcopalian" under Orthodoxy. These parishes understand that Episcopalian theology is NOT Orthodox theology.

Herman

[Catholic]

Dear geo/Arsenios,

Many thanks for your sincere and gracious apology. It means a lot to me.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth

[Catholic]

Dear Arsenios,

Also regarding your emphasis on communion with an Orthodox Church, I think you've forgotten to take into account that someone could be an inquirer/catechumen in the Orthodox Church for many years before formally becoming Orthodox (I have met such people who really took years of study and finally 'took the step'). From your posts one might think the 'only way' is to immediately be baptized Orthodox, and people really need time to learn and study. I was reading your post to Daniel and found that you were emphasizing that one must be baptized into the Orthodox faith to be ontologically Orthodox - well, yes, but if you see what I am cautioning, surely you don't mean one should rush into such an important thing as that, or that to 'begin' to live in that manner one can be sincere and yet of course not be partaking of the fullness of the Mysteries as the rest of the community.

I just wanted to let you know how it sounded to me - I wouldn't want anyone who is inquiring to get the idea that you had to get baptized Orthodox as quickly as possible - I am sure a long period of study is necessary, is it not?

Again my thanks for your apology, which I so appreciate.

I will probably be leaving this board quite soon for good, because I really dislike message boards and such! I don't think they are the best medium for discussing this sort of thing!

Sincerely,
E.

[Catholic]

I am sorry, I just realized my sentence is unclear in one place - I meant to say that surely one can be sincere and begin to live an Orthodox life insofar as one is able, without yet partaking of the Mysteries during the period of inquiry, while one attends Liturgy and studies and so on. It may not have been clear what I meant - sorry.-- E.

[Byzcath1]

Us byzantine catholics are in the same situation as the Episcoplians that converted to Orthodoxy and use a Western Rite Liturgy. Its not any different.

In Christ +
Daniel

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Daniel,

I am sorry. First, the Orthodox are only going to use an Orthodox liturgy, be the rite eastern or western. For it to be western means that all un-Orthodox things in it have been subtracted, and anything Orthodox not present in their former use has been added. Thus, Orthodox can worship "rightly" with any "right" (Orthodox) rite (pun intended).

However, it isn't soimply in worshipping according to a particular form that makes one Orthodox, hence anyone of us non-Orthodox can use an Orthodox rite (eastern or western) but until we're "in communion" with (what they're calling) "The Church" we aren't, and that is really the end of it (but, of course, doesn't have to be -- as many on the list will attest).
By that I meant, we can always go "beyond the end" and into the arms of "The Church."

Yours in Christ,

Richard

[Arsenios]

Elizabeth writes:


Also regarding your emphasis on communion with an Orthodox Church, I think you've forgotten to take into account that someone could be an inquirer/catechumen in the Orthodox Church for many years before formally becoming Orthodox (I have met such people who really took years of study and finally 'took the step').

I am one of these - I was virtually unchurched at 55 when I found out that there IS Orthodoxy, and that it is 'my' faith [reading the opening chapter of the first book of the Philokalia was like sitting across the table from dear friends having a cup of Jo, so familiar was it, and then I saw that they were writing in Greek in the 5th century, and I was reading but a translation...]. I showed up to 'sign on' soon thereafter, and was held off for four years, until March 5th of this year... But I had a long commute, and could only show up once a week, and never to be instructed... I am virtually 'self-taught' from reading ABOUT Orthodoxy, and am very close to signing off these boards as well and getting down to the serious focus needed to make some progress in repentance...


From your posts one might think the 'only way' is to immediately be baptized Orthodox, and people really need time to learn and study.

Good grief! If I gave that impression... Well, thank-you... It is just that communion is the key, that without baptism and chrismation into Orthodoxy, one is not Orthodox, and regarding the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" idea of the Byz Catholics, I was simply saying that they are not in communion with Orthodoxy, and thereby, ipso-facto, are not Orthodox, even though they may very well LOOK Orthodox in their attire and "spirituality" and services...


I was reading your post to Daniel and found that you were emphasizing that one must be baptized into the Orthodox faith to be ontologically Orthodox - well, yes, but if you see what I am cautioning, surely you don't mean one should rush into such an important thing as that, or that to 'begin' to live in that manner one can be sincere and yet of course not be partaking of the fullness of the Mysteries as the rest of the community.

Funny thing about that - As a catechumen, standing in the narthex during the Liturgy of the Faithful [following the expulsion of the catechumens after their portion of the liturgy] was a long and agonizing stand that just seemed to take forever... And now, that same block of time, just blinks by almost unnoticed...

But your point is spot on - Preparation for baptism is crucial and essential - I have seen those not prepared get baptized anyway, with results that involved a lot of pain and suffering... [and straying...]


I just wanted to let you know how it sounded to me - I wouldn't want anyone who is inquiring to get the idea that you had to get baptized Orthodox as quickly as possible - I am sure a long period of study is necessary, is it not?

Four years - And then the approval of my priest, and then the bishop, and my sponsor [a ROCOR hieromonk]... And the approval is - er... pretty "subjective" - Which is to say - intuitive... Better put, the approval is spiritually discerned usually... Objective standards have their place, but when those standards get into trouble, as they can, then I thank God for spiritual discernment...


Again my thanks for your apology, which I so appreciate.

I was just wrong - Please know that I can be wrong like that - And maybe next time, IF there IS a next time, I will be able to catch myself sooner, thanks to you and thanks to Fr. A's post on being kind... I was too busy making sure my point could not be ignored, and forgot all about kindness and the gentleness that works such goodness in souls like yours and mine...


I will probably be leaving this board quite soon for good, because I really dislike message boards and such! I don't think they are the best medium for discussing this sort of thing!

God bless you wherever you go...

My prayers are with you...
Arsenios

[Rebecca]

Us byzantine catholics are in the same situation as the Episcoplians that converted to Orthodoxy and use a Western Rite Liturgy. Its not any different.

Dear Daniel,

It's my understanding that what you posted is indeed consistent with what the RC Church teaches regarding Byzantine Catholic. You might find it interesting to seek an Orthodox priest, in person, and inquire about why the Orthodox Church does not agree with what you posted...seriously...just suggesting perhaps deeper inquiry might provide a satisfying result.

Best Regards...

[M. Rallis]

Amidst the gold in Father Averky’s post the sparkle of a jewel caught my attention.

Father said:

“During the cold of the Winter of last year, I opened it again, and to my utter amazement, I realized that now, after years and years of trials, sorrows, sufferings, temptations, many prayers, tears at being granted, by God's mercy, to see the depths of my pride and sinfulness, the book came alive for me, and I knew exactly the meaning of the passages.”

Here, then , is an example of true Christian (Orthodox) spirituality! The example is not found in reading and understanding and contemplating Father Averky’s words, Holy Scripture, the Fathers, or “The Way of the Pilgrim”, but is found in “the tears that we must shed when God grants us a glimpse of the depth of our own pride and sinfulness.” And the preparation for this Mercy, the “trials, sorrows, sufferings, and temptations”, reflects the Life in Christ lived by those who unite themselves with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

[Janice Chadwick]

Daniel, Byzantine Catholics are not part of the Orthodox Church and to call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is dishonest. Your Patriarch is the Pope and he is not Orthodox, he is Roman Catholic. Following the Orthodox liturgy doesn't make one Orthodox, any more than an Orthodox Church following the Roman Catholic Mass format but being under an Orthodox Patriarch would make them Roman Catholics in communion with Orthodoxy (though if the Orthodox Church found out an Orthodox Church was doing this, I have a feeling that they would not be in communion with any Orthodox Church for very long). If you are Orthodox, you will be under an Orthodox Partriarch and you will be accountable to and be under the direction of Orthodox clergy. If you are not, then you are not Orthodox.

[Byzcath1]

Good thing i never said i was a Orthodox Christian.

In Christ +
Daniel

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,


I am in hopes that you and Prof. McBride accept the fact that everyone on
this message board is important to me...

Oh yes, I have known and am quite accepting of this.


" He said, ."I am Orthodox," and I replied, "No, not really-this just another phase for you."

This is one of many reasons I am not "Orthodox" in the yet official sense of the word.


Richard, you always try to be a gentleman.

Well, I am English you know, by descent, that is (and as you know, we can't descend far).

Not to worry, all is forgiven if there was any need; I took no offense, but thanks for clearing up the confusion.

At your service,
Richard

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Daniel,

I believe that if you read The Prologue From Ochrid You will find short bio's of people whose life defines Orthodox Spirituality, without really delving into any technical definitions. It's reminiscent of the phrase in Hebrews 11:38 "...of whom the world was not worthy."

Various subject fields have their classics, the costs of which vary!

Doctrine: The Development of Doctrine, by Jaraslov Pelikan
Iconography: I can only supply the authors name here; Lenoid Upensky
History: There's several good ones,covering specific areas. My favorite is The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, by J.M. Hussey
Mysticism: The Mystical Theology of The Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky(sorry for mis-spelling); or The Communion of Love, by Matthew the Poor
Teachings of the Early Church: The Didache
Either, The Sayings of The Desert Fathers or, The Lives of The Desert Fathers would be exceptionally good.

These are suggestions, and are by no means definitive.

the unworthy servant

[Matthew Panchisin]

It's difficult for me to understand how in a schism (a formal division in or separation from a church or religious body) one can be on the one side and claim to be on the other side as well. It would seem to me like rather uncomfortable reasoning resulting in a likewise position. Schisms don't have middles.

In Christ,

Matthew P.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Daniel,

As you can see, you thought that you could simply ask us about Orthodox books on spirituality, thinking that it would just like reading the "Imitation of Christ," or the religious disciplines of St. Ignatius of Loyola, but that is not the case.

I can see that we could go round and round for a few more days, but we all would be wasting time. As you say, you are happy with your "Byzantine Catholic Spirituality," whatever that might be, and I can only pray that it will bring you to the love God and neighbor, and that you will be saved.. Please, read any book you would like; I am sure you can find good lists on Google, not wasting any more time on us.

In Christ,

Fr. A.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Let us try to re-focus this thread to discussion on Orthodox Spirituality as examined from patristic, monastic, liturgical and ecclesiastical perspectives, not simply from personal 'preference' and comfort. Do remember: this is neither an opinion forum nor an interfaith fellowship -- it is a community for dialogue on points of theology, thought and praxis from the perspectives I have mentioned above.

(NB: Some will be happy to hear that the Community Outline and Terms of Use document is nearly complete, which shall help to make more explicit the focus and tone of this Discussion Community in its ever-growing size.)

INXC, Matthew

[Arsenios]

James wrote:


Iconography: I can only supply the author's name here; Lenoid Upensky

I think that's Leonid Ouspenski... Le Noid is a French bookworm, as I recall! :-)


The Communion of Love, by Matthew the Poor

This book was pivotal for me in understanding that we are called, as Christians, to live Christ. I came to Christianity with the question: 'What is worship?' And nobody had the answer, until Orthodoxy, and reading Matthew the Poor, I found that among other things, worship is becoming one with Another through love, and that we worship Christ by living His life through ours, and our lives through His, in the Communion of Love...

This tiny little book was huge for me...

[geo] Arsenios

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Matthew P.,

The whole point of Schism is for the one who holds himself to be "right" to in some way sever connection with the side he deems wrong. The reason for having to do so is that the side he deems wrong doesn't see itself as wrong but as right. Thus, both will assert that they are on what the opposition (naturally considering itself to be right) calls "the other [i.e. other than the wrong and therefore right] side".

That should be clear.

Richard

[Archbishop Constantin]

I direct this to the two Matthews: Panchisin & Steenberg! But also to al those who sincerely are seeking the truth...

Mr. Panchisin, I say to you that you have hit the nail on the head. No one can be "Catholic and Orthodox" at the same time. It is impossible to accept all the aberations of the bishop of Rome and at the same time renounce them, in order that you can be Orthodox. IMPOSSIBLE!

These people who call themselves "Byzantines" or "Orthodox under the Pope" are like the Genissaries during the days of the late Otoman Empire. The Genissaries were children of the Christians, made up of little babies that each village, town and city had to give to the Sultan as a special tax. The Genissaries were trained by the Turks, told that their father was the Sultan (does it sound like Pope?) and they were the elite of the armed forces and the fiercest persecutors of the Christians in the Otoman Empire. The group still exists (made up now of elite Turkish young men), according to a friend priest from Istanbul. He, at one time, was notified by the Patriarch (then Demetrios) not to come out in the street, because the Genissaries were looking for infidel priests to kill them. He had to hide under a table in their living room for four days... Likewise, these "Catholics-whatever" (Ukranian, Romanian, Carpathorussian, Ruthinian -a country made up by the Vatican to include all countries that were left out, also the Maronites and Melkites fall in that category, but they have an extremely rich heritage), with Orthodox Roots and Heritage they believed in certain lies. So, they are zealous to put it mildly and they would like to see themselves accomplish great things, like unite the Churches, just like the Protestants, that Father Averky realized that were amongst us, they are also amongst us to also...save us(!!!). One cannot be Orthodox and Catholic at the same time in the context and meaning attached to the word Orthodox, because the Roman Catholic Church is not orthodox (with small "o"). I think that they have to understand that Roman Catholics of the Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite and other minority rites in Catholicism are just Roman Catholics and they should be happy with that. I am of Greek heritage. I have many Italian friends, but that does not make me an Italian and Greek at the same time; even if you painted me purple, I will still be a purple Greek. In much simpler words: you cannot be a Republican and a Democrat at the same time; you cannot have the service of a funeral and a wedding at the same time. It is impossible to be a (Roman) Catholic and an Orthodox Christian at the same time. I think one has to be completely out of his/her mind to be able to accept all the additions of Rome to be Catholic and then renounce them AT THE SAME TIME, in order that he is Orthodox. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

Also, it should be noted that Orthodoxy is not an opinion, like being a baseball club fan or belonging to a political party. Orthodoxy is not like Roman Catholicism, without the Pope or with married clergy. Orthodoxy is a whole new world for those who come into it. ORTHODOXY IS A WAY OF LIFE!!!

If you truly want to renounce all the Roman aberations, you can find them in an old book written by Isabel Hapgood: there is the part of "Chrismation of Converts" page 463 (this book is not used much because it is considered too compromising to the Romans). Are you ready to become a full human being? Are you ready to become the full and undefiled image of God? Then here is what you have to renounce (please excuse the old English, but Mrs. Hapgood was from England and translated the book from the Russian in the late 1800's):

"1) Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Savior, Christ Himself: "who proceedeth from the Father" doth not suffice; and that the addition of man's invention: "and also the Son"; is required?

2) Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that it doth not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the Head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ's Body, that is to say the whole Church?

3) Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual power and authority, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince; And that the bishop of Rome alone is his successor; And the bishops of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Moscow and others are not, equally with the bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

4) Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Ecumenical Councils?

5) Dost thou renounce all other doctrines of the Western Confession, both old and new, which are contrary to the Word of God, and to the true Tradition of the Church, and to the doctrines of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?"

Just like the Lord Jesus Christ said to the rich young lawyer: "If you want to be as great as that, then give up everything and follow me!" (slightly edited to make it more meaningful). Another thing that the Lord said: "He who is not with me, he is against me!", and also:

LET, THEREFORE THOSE WHO HAVE EARS TO HEAR, HEAR!

Mr. Steenberg, we humbly ask your forgiveness for the length of this posting. THANK YOU!

In Christ's Holy Name,

+ Archbishop Constantin

[Byzcath1]

Every buddy posting, this is my last post for this specific thread, i dont appreciate being called "an insult to Orthodoxy and Catholicism" and all the other things that ive had to read on this Subject. So see you around the other messages.

Daniel

[Archbishop Constantin]

Byzcath1! You wrote: "Us byzantine catholics are in the same situation as the Episcoplians that converted to Orthodoxy and use a Western Rite Liturgy. Its not any different."

And I say to you: "My beloved ESTRANGED BROTHER IN CHRIST, your comment in regards to Western Orthodox Parishes being in a parallelism to the minority rites of the Church of Rome, is not quite a correct statement. Western Rite Orthodox Christians, may be worshipping using a western form of worship (which is and should be theologically correct), BUT THEY HAVE THE FULLNESS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH! Outside they appear western, but inside they are 100% Orthodox IN THE FULLNESS OF THE FAITH DELIVERED TO US (ORTHODOX) BY THE APOSTLES AND THE SAINTS! In the case of any minority rite Catholics, they celebrate their services in a form that could be "Orthodox" on the outside, but inside they are Roman Catholics accepting all the erroneous additions of Rome.

I am not very familiar with Roman Catholicism, except what I have read in the books, and what I observe, being a Missionary in Latin America, seeing the behavior of the Roman Clergy.

My impression of the Roman Theologians is that they do things like the old KGB agents did in the Soviet Union during the days of communism. I cannot get over how clumcy and inept they are. I am amused by their ungracefulness at the Altar and the dry 20 minute special. They were imposed the "filioque" by the Germans, but now they will fight and risk the loss of their souls to maintain it. They invented the celibacy of the Clergy, misunderstanding certain statements of Saint Augustine, and now they are depriving their young men of their basic and most important gift, so important, that God did not revoke it from our ancestors after the fall: the grace to be co-participants in God's creation, by having a loving wife. So, they make the whole marital situation appear like something sinful and look at women as the cause of it! I am a widower and I have three children; you cannot imagine the feeling I had when I went home after my wife delivered my first born son... It was a feeling that the grace of God was upon me and my loving wife, who left this world before us...

They are robing Christ of His Humanity to exult the All-Holy and Pure Virgin Mary. We exult her, we sing hymns to her, we call her Mother, because if God is our Father, then she is our Mother! But we do not deify her! She is the only human being that never disobeyed God's wishes until her death. She could have asked her beloved son to spare her the pain of death. But she did not! Because by dying, she gave proof that her Son is fully (100%) a Human Being and of course fully God! She already is rewarded for this by sparing her the Last Judgement; now she is with her Son! We also look at the Virgin Mary as a mighty General of the Angelic Hosts, fighting the Devil and protecting us humans. If you follow the Byzantine rite, look in your service book the Akathism Hymn to the All-Holy Theotokos (=Birthgiver of God=Bogoroditsa). In the Hymnology of the Akathist Hymn (and especially the Kontanion), she appears as a mighty General leading the hosts of the Angels against all the demonic powers. And there are so many other things, which you may not think about: they deprive so many baptized Christians of Holy Communion by descriminating against them because of their age. How can anyone dare refuse a Christian Communion based on his age? Once I gave a sermon, "Why are there no cry rooms in the Orthodox Churches". Because no one has the right to prohibit entrance into the Church to a baptized and chrismated Christian!

We have many well educated and capable people in Monachos.net and they should have given you the same answers I gave to you. But they are polite and don't want to hurt your feelings. But if you are here asking questions and you have not left yet, you must be ready to hear the true answers, not to be stroked and petted! I am sure of that!

Listen to Fr. Averky and Dr. Steenberg and the other brothers in Christ. They know what they are talking about! You have to pose your questions more defined and insistant!

I hope that I have not hurt your feelings, but I would rather have you mad at me, than to leave you "in your grace of ignorance" (I heard this, it was given to me as a suggestion by a Roman Catholic Priest), ignorant of what is the real truth...

I pray that the Lord will protect you and inspire you to find the right way. When you do that, please mention my name in your prayers. I need all the prayer I can get now, for my Ministry and, perhaps you might mention me to the All-Merciful God when I am not here any more. I am merely the humble servant of the Lord, who told you the truth, no matter what the consequences may be (Orthodox Bishops are not princes of the Church).

In Christ's Holy Name

+ Archbishop Constantin

[Fr Averky]

Dear Friends,

I have contacted Daniel privately.

My dear Elizabeth,

Allow me to clarify something for you. I do not know the religious climate in Brazil, but here in the U.S there is every possible manifestion of religous belief and practise conceivable: When I was a boy in the 50's, America was basically a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant country, with a large minority of Catholics, a small number of Jews, and but a smattering of non-Christian religionists.

In the last thirty years there has been a major population shift, and we now have millions of new citizens from *China, South East Asia, the Middle East, Sub-Sahran Africa, and Eastern Europe, and Spanish-speaking people now constitute our largest minority. Immigration from Western is but a tricle, as the quotas are small.The number of Muslims was all but insignificant, but now, like in all the world, it is growing rapidly in our country.

America used to be very conservative, but since the rise of the post Vagican II ecumenical movement of the 60's, has become very eclectic in its religious expressions. People have been very effected by New Age thinking, think of themselves as little gods, and if they have a certain belief, because it is "true" to them than it must certainly be true. The people will very boldly tell you, "I am a very spiritual person."

People will tell you that they "believe in Christ," or God, but they have no problem using aromatherapy, crystals, "cosmic massages," practise Hatha Yoga, have a personal "Angel," a kind of a demi-god, have interest in Eastern religions, say the Jesus Prayer, and happily eat at Indian vegetarian restaurants, not knowing, or more so, not caring, that somewhere in the place is a Hindu shrine with food that has been offered to an idols.

Even those who do practise Christianity, pick only those beliefs and disciplines to which they are attracted, rejecting that which does not suit them. Even Catholics in this country will tell you that they are "good"Catholics, but will at the same time openly tell you that they do not accept all of the Pope's teachings on faith and morals, choosing what is comfortable for them. The Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Pope, does not mean all that much to them.

So you see, when the remark about "supermarket shopping" was made, this is what was meant. Here, we call it "Salad Bar Christianity," for people slide their tray down the line, taking only what they like.

This is what makes it difficult to even embrace Orthodoxy, for people are touched by this mentality unwillingly, and bring part of that mentality with them. Our nation was founded by men who were unwilling to be forced to pay taxes to what they soon thought to be an unfair "foreign" government, in which they had no say. "No taxation withour representation!" was the incindiary cry. From that time on, we have been a nation of self-determination, very sensitive to our "rights." This has carried into religious thought as well. It is not easy to come into a Church in which people do not have "rights, as it were, but must be obedient to the Church in its teachings, episcopal authority. and practise.

I hope that this will help you to understand our situation as Orthodox, because we are surrounded by many people who see even their own Christian belief as arbitrary. Living in a country with only three million Orthodox Christians out of a population of two hundred eighty five million, we encounter not only lack of knowledge of Orthodxy, but live in an ever secularized society. Having grown up with such "freedom," and being urged from childhood to to "play to win." to be "first," to be "proud of yourself," it is difficult for Americans to grasp the concepts of humility and obedience, for it is not part of our national character. Thus, the vast majority of American Orthodox converts, bringing all that baggage with them, have to struggle to humble themselves before they can ever hope to attain spiritual insights. Until recently, there were but a handful of stable Orthodox monasteries, and they suffered from the narrowness of ethnicity, and Orthodx Christians are left to turn to spiritual books for education , guidance, and at times even for comfort. Yet we endure, and despite being "foreigners" in our own country, we love and fiercely defend that shich we hold so dear.

Daniel and Elizabeth, I humbly ask your forgivenss, for being too "correct," when I should show love and patience. However, as this thread progressed, I felt that there were misconceptions that simply needed to be cleared up, even though I knew it would be unpleasant for all.

I wish young Daniel and you my dear Elizabeth, all good things, especially salvation.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy
Fr. A.

[Catholic]

Dear Father Averky:

Yes, I do understand what you're saying here. I do live in the USA, though, and not in Brazil.

The 'consumerist' mentality in modern life is indeed pervasive.

Thank you for your good wishes!
Catholic/Elizabeth

[Fr Averky]

Dear Elizabeth,

I do not know what planet I was on that day, but I got it in my head that when you were asking me about Fr. Herman's books, you told me you were from Brazil- It miust have been somebody else-sorry.

Dear Archbishop Constantine and Matthew,

While I certainly accept your reproach in regards to the Orthodox Church having seven Sacraments, I understand that for us it is not that fixed number, but after your words of concern, out of curiosity, I looked on the Websites of several Orthodox Churches, and every single one of them lists seven Sacraments, or more properly, Mysteries. Perhaps you can contact their Webmasters and let them know that they also are crypto-Catholics. Seriously, I was not offended, but rather surprized by your reaction. Could either of you give all of us a good source which will give a more definitive answer? For my own further education, I would like to know what a truly accurate answer would be, for I would be loathe to be suspected of "returning" to my Catholicism as the good Archbishop charges.

Faithfully yours in Christ,

Fr. A..

[M.C. Steenberg]

Father Averky wrote:


While I certainly accept your reproach in regards to the Orthodox Church having seven Sacraments, I understand that for us it is not that fixed number, but after your words of concern, out of curiosity, I looked on the Websites of several Orthodox Churches, and every single one of them lists seven Sacraments, or more properly, Mysteries.

Yes, this is not surprising. And, as I tried to imply in my post on this matter some weeks ago, it is not necessarily wrong to identify seven 'chief mysteries' in this manner, for no Orthodox would consider that baptism, chrismation, the Eucharist, repentance, anointing, marriage and ordination are not, in a real sense, of a special and high regard amongst the myriad other elements of the dynamic mystery of the faith.

However, if we look at the historical usage of the numeration of 'seven sacraments', we find that it is a very late usage indeed for the Orthodox Church, brought into the fray largely through the influence of Western theological primers (i.e. theological 'textbooks') which were so popular in Russia during the 17th-19th centuries. There is a direct sense in which the straightforwardness of the seven sacrament definition, proclaimed in these books, provided a means to combat the real and/or perceived anti-sacramentalism of various Protestant denominations which were 'in the air' in that era, and the definition was taken up as a helpful tool in defending the genuine presence of the Mysteries.

My hope, in my previous post on this topic, was to show not that the definition of seven sacraments is wrong, but that it is simply incomplete, or does not take wholly into account the notion of real sacramental mystery which the Orthodox Church proclaims is present in much that goes beyond those mysteries set out in such a listing (e.g. icons, a homily, a prostration, a prayer rope, the drinking of holy water, the touching of holy relics).

INXC, Matthew

[Catholic]

Dear Fr. Averky:

I didn't ask you about Fr. Herman's books; that was Silvia, who is from Brazil and is Roman Catholic.

I think Silvia's question would be in the Casual and Personal, where the St. Herman of Alaska Bro. thread is -- your prayer thread turned into that one and so now there is a new prayer thread.

I can understand how hard it is to keep everyone's name straight. There's also more than one Elizabeth.

I don't think I'll be posting any more if at all, though - I am trying not to visit message boards too much.

[Janice Chadwick]

Elizabeth and Daniel, I put things too strongly in my post and I ask your forgiveness. I just want to say that it is very dangerous to adopt means of Orthodox Spirituality without being Orthodox an being under the guidance of an Orthodox priest/spiritual father. You can get into a lot of trouble if you are not practicing them under supervision. There's a lot of truth in the saying, "don't try this at home."

[Richard McBride]

Your Eminence Constantin

You have said it so beautifully, it gives new meaning and insight for those who continue to struggle in the world:


"...their basic and most important gift, so important, that God did not revoke it from our ancestors after the fall: the grace to be co-participants in God's creation, by having a loving wife."

thank you
richard

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Archbishop Constantin,

Your Grace, meaning no disrespect I must alert you to the fact that you misspoke with regard to the filioque when you attributed it to the Germans. It was really the Spanish (in Toledo) who canonized Augustine's Trinitarian theory and put the filioque into the Creed.

Dear Matthew S.,

Regarding Lombard's numeration of the sacraments used among the Orthodox, this was found (I think first) in Jeremias II's response to the Lutheran "theologians" at Tuebingen (approx. 1580).

Richard

[Fr John Wehling]

Richard,

Perhaps what Arch. Constantine is referring to is the Carolingians, who, while not "inventing" the Filioque, took it and ran with it.

Just a guess...
Fr John

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father John,


Perhaps what Arch. Constantine is referring to is the Carolingians, who, while not "inventing" the Filioque, took it and ran with it.

Hmmm. I'll bet you're right about that! Charlemagne was Gaul, wasn't he? But of course the so-called Holy Roman Empire was (maybe 'later to be called'?) the "German States."

And run with it they did!

Dear Archbishop Constantin,
is this what you meant? Sorry to have interfered if so.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Friends,

As I recall, Arianism started up again in around 800 A.D.in Spain, and at a special plenerary session, the Spanish bishops added "filioque"to the Nicene Creed in order to "bolster" Jesus Christ's position as Son of God and God, by saying that the Holy Spirit had to proceed from the Father and the Son. I believe that I read somewhere many years ago that when Charlemagne was crowned "Holy Roman Emperor," on Christmas day in 800 A.D., he confirmed the usage of "filioque" in his kingdom as an 'offering' to the Pope of Rome. We all know the unfortunate result of this unhappy decision.

Fr. A.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Fr.A,

Yes, the Arians in Spain were the Visigoths. Goths (Visi- and Ostri-)were Arian because they were converted in earlier days by the missionary Arian Bishop Ulfilas who invented the Gothic Alphabet, reduced the Gothic language to written form and translated the Scriptures into it.

I can't for the life of me see how the filioque was needed to bolster the divinity of the Son, as the oririginal Nicene Creed before the Constantinopolitan addition regarding the Spirit had dealt with that issue.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

I think that the West had essentially believed in the Filioque, and a chance came up in which it could be adopted, and it was. When proclaiming a new dogma, the preface usually says, "As the Church has always taught..." As the Pope is Christ on earth, he has to power to legislate, changing even the truth. When I was a young RC, the Church strictly taught certain truths; in my second year in seminary, those truths were replaced with new ones. Roman Catholics will tell you that "the Church always taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, even from Apostolic times." Of course, it does happen to say in the Holy Gospel that our Lord said to His apostles, "I will send to you the Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father.." Go figure. As we well know, Arianism has never died out, and is actively preached by Evangelicals.

Fr. A.

[John Wilson]

I can't for the life of me see how the filioque was needed to bolster the divinity of the Son, as the original Nicene Creed before the Constantinopolitan addition regarding the Spirit had dealt with that issue.

This is precisely what I have been thinking.
What exactly was lacking in;

light of light, true God of true God
begotten not made,
of one being with the Father, ...

John

[Arsenios]

A little quote from another board:

An Athonite elder said, "The more spiritual a person is, the fewer rights he wants in this life."

Arsenios

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Fr. A.,


As we well know, Arianism has never died out, and is actively preached by Evangelicals.

I know that it has a resurgence in JW'ism, but I didn't know it had never died out. Also, I'm curious to know, what Evangelicals actively preach it?

Thanks in advance,

Richard

[Rebecca]

Someone recently posted about one of the "Holy Fools." In thinking about these folks, it seems that they must be the freest and most joyful people on the planet. Free, because they are not governed by the opinions or attitudes of others; they are purely governed by our Lord, having surrendured all to Him they are the sparrows and the lilys of the field. Joyful, because they live in harmony with their conscience, their heart and eye turned toward God, and having tasted that which truly satisfies, that living water that refreshes in eternity, they see the world and their fellow man clearly as beloved creatures of God whose Love is beyond all reconing and Who turns the world on its ear, quaking the earth, darkening the sun, rending the veil in the temple in His unsurpassable action of Love for mankind...God, whose glory is incomprehensible, creating the stars, the heavens, the earth and all that lives in it, Whose majecty and dominion are eternal and absolute, yet Who lived humbly and chose to be crucified so that He could be in us even as the Father is in the Son. The ethos of the world is so far from the ethos of God.

[Johanna]

Rebecca,

Thank you for sharing your beautiful thoughts on "Holy Fools". What you had to share touched my heart. Oh to be so free... Thank you for your post.

Johanna

[Fr Averky]

Dear Rebecca,

I also am very grateful to you.

Richard Leigh,

What I meant was that if you listen carefully to Evangelical preachers, you will hear mthem time after time say that "Jesus is the only Son of God," but never mentione that He is God. As I am typing this to ypou, I am looking at the Website of the United Pentecostal Church International, and here is what they say about the Holy Spirit:

"The Holy Spirit is God. "God is a Spirit." (John 4:24) To become a subject of the kingdom of God, Jesus said a person must be "born again," or "born of water and the Spirit." The birth of the Spirit and the Baptism of the Spirit are synonymous terms."

"It is a blessed privilege to experience a release of Spirit, finding freedom of soul and expression in the baptism in the Holy Spirit ...The soul has an empty place "in the shape of God" that nothing else will fill or satisfy. The baptism of the Spirit completely satisfies every longing of the soul."

"There are two major evidences of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The initial, outward evidence is speaking with toungues, which means speaking miraculously in languages the speaker does not know."

"We cannot adequately express with own words the ecstasy experienced in baptism of the Holy Spirit. Only through unaccustomed words of heavenly coherence can we utter what our souls would express."

Fiurther evidence of the Spirit's abiding presence in our lives is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. which Paul mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,. peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, temperance, against such there is no law."

You might wonder why I answer a question concerning Christ's Divinity with an answer pertaining to the Holy Spirit. It is because the "baptism of the Spirit" is most central to Pentecostal belief, a "proof" of God's love and favour. Christ is invoked as :Lord," but is a familiar, almost familial, for He is God's Son, and is therefore more accessible than God Himself, His Father.

As to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it has given me the answer to me of the question which I have asked oveer the years. Evangelicals seem almost maniacally happy most of the time: It is because, having been "baptized in the Spirit," they have to prove it by having the qualities which it gives, and therefore, they are alwas cheerful and joyful, and never have to talk about sin and repentance, for that all ended when they were "born again." Johanna can tell you how painful it can be to always appear as if everything is always just fine.

While it is important to recognize Jesus Christ as Saviour, the importance of that confession lies in the ability to be baptized in Spirit. And one is not truly confirmed in his own belief that he is "born again" by the Spirit until he has spoken in tongues. I can remember in the mid-70's when the Charismatic Revival was in full swing, and one woman I knew who had spoken in tongues for several moths "felt so sorry for those who had not yet received the Spirit, for it made her wonder if they were still sinning."

One of the seminarians is actually writing a paper on this theme, and he said that the Fathers of the Church point out that only those with the greates humility and love of God can ever undersrtand the deeper meaning of the Holy Scriptures, whereas Pentecostal belief rests entirely on pridefulness.

It brought to mind that Penta costalism and Islam have one thing in Common; they are growing rapidly becauise they base acceptance into their religion by a very simple premis, either "to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Saviour," or "There is no god but Allah, and Mohhamed is his prophet." Both give assurances of complete salvation almost at the very moment of profession of faith. Having been "Saved," Christ is then rather out of the picture, and one is filled with hopes that he will speak in tongues and be a "real" Christian. Thus, looking at the Trinity not as One God in Three Persons, they seem to see God the Father, His only son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, from whom blessings flow.

That Richard, is what I perceive.Perehaps people will tell me I am completley off base here, but having listened to Evangelical Christians over the years, this is what I have been able to deduce, and I am open to being corrected.

Sincerely,

FR. A.

[Janice Chadwick]

Fr. A, I came from a Baptist background and not Penecostal, but I have had many friends who were (and probably still are) Charismatics, and I think you have hit the nail right on the head.

They may seem happy on the outside, but I wonder if they really are on the inside. Evangelicals are often taught that certain feelings and emotions are unacceptable, so you feel the need to suppress them. Of course, that leads to denial, which will eventually make you sick. It's often not safe to talk to other Christians or your pastor about them. You could very well be told that you'll go to hell because you feel that way. Sometimes, I wonder if they read the Psalms. David wasn't afraid to ask God questions. Unless you are honest with yourself, and God (and, of course, with your spiritual father) and bring them out into the open, you're going to be sick. I wonder if many, many Evangelicals aren't pretending to be joyful and happy because they've been taught that they are *supposed* to be that way. There's not supposed to be any sorrow or suffering (though that is hardly what the scriptures teach).

I think many Evangelicals are wounded, and unless you have some very discerning people, you can fool a lot of people if you try hard enough to appear happy.

[Fr John Wehling]

Dear brother in Christ, Fr Averky,

Is is interesting that you mention the United Pentecostals. They actually are not Arians so much as they are Sabellians: they do not believe in the Holy Trinity, but rather in a form of modalism. And I understand, perhaps incorrectly, that they are the fastest growing Pentecostal denomination in the world. I do believe that evangelicals who are "in the know" recognize their heretical teaching and don't have any sort of communion (used loosely) with the UP's.

However, T.D. Jakes is, I believe, UP, and his books are carried in many Christian bookstores. so maybe there are many who are not "in the know."

If anybody has any corrections to make to my comments I am glad to hear them.

For what it's worth,
Fr John

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Father John, my Brother

Thank ypu for the information. I happened to look at the information by the UPI which my friend was using for his paper, but that sounds pretty close to what I heard from Pentecostals over the years, but then, I would not know the "fine points" of thier beliefs. Never having been a Protestant of any kind, I really have no comprehension of their belief systems other than they are so varied.

Richard,

I will ask one of the monks who teaches in the seminary, my mind is too tired now, and I have not looked at some of these issues in years. I was not able to continue on in my studies because I was assigned as a secretary to a bishop, and my life became very busy in many areas after that.

I appreciate your considerations, for they are always thoughtful.

Sincerely

Fr.A.

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Rebecca,

In your post a day sgo you statedthat "The ehos of the world is so far from the ethos of God.", when you spoke about holy fools and the freedom they enjoyed. As a Protestant my best friend (here in Texas) and I tried unsuccessfully to define "freedom" in the context of what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatian church; "It was for freedom that Christ set you free, therefore do not become entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (Gal.6:1)

It was that search for a definition that pricked my interest, when at the local university library, I espied a book, Freedom of The Spirit, by Nicholas Berdeyev. I found the definition my friend and I had searched for all those years.

What an interesting thing it is, that unrestrained by the things so many consider as necessary, Holy Fools struggle - so far as thsy've travelled in deification - against the passions, which those blinded by the devil think of as commonplace, and no big deal.
Protestants, and Charismatics in particular, have defined "...the joy of the Lord is my strength..." to inculde as prominent, an outer manifestation of happiness. I think it was Edmund Burke who said, "Happy is he who has nothing to lock up!"

I know that I'm not a 'holy fool', but I know that I'm happiest when nothing restrains me from loving God whole-heartedly. THANKS!

the unworthy servant

[Donald Wescott]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

It has become clearer to me all the time, that there are many Protestants, Evangelical and otherwise, who hold Arian type beliefs. There are a number of young men whom I work with who fancy themselves as Messianic Jews, or "Jews for Jesus" if you will. One thing that always stops conversation in it's tracks is when I ask the question Christ asked of his Holy Disciples and Apostles, "Who do you say that I am" They are willing to say that He is Messiah, Savior and Lord, but not to acknowledge that He is indeed God in the flesh. My parish priest sees the fundamental "battle" if you will, in American religion today as one between Incarnational theology and Arianism, I tend to agree.

His unworthy servant,
Donald Eusebios

[Arsenios]

Richard writes:



Father Romanides said:

"Following Augustine, the Franks identified revelation with the Bible and believed that Christ gave to the Church the Holy Spirit as a guide to its correct understanding.

This would be similar to claiming that the books of about biology were revealed by microbes and cells without the biologists having seen them with the microscope, and that these same microbes and cells inspire future teachers to correctly understand these books without the use of the microscope"
Franks, Romans, Feudalism And Doctrine; 1981; p.41.

Father Romanides' point is that Orthodox, according to the model of the Fathers, received such Theosis through the nous, or the heart of the soul.


Dear Richard -

I think his point is simply that if you want to know microbes, you go to microbes, so that you do not throw away the microscope [the means of knowing microbes] because you have a text-book ABOUT microbes...

And just because you have texts written by divinized [holy] Fathers *about* God [eg the Bible], you do not throw away your divine "microscope"... So that:

Likewise, if you want to know God, you go to God, and you do not throw away the means of knowing God because you have a text ABOUT God. And the means of knowing God is purification of the heart, prayer, fasting, entering into the Church, obedience to Christ's commandments, self-denial ["Let him deny himself, pick up his own cross, and be following me."] partaking of the Holy Mysteries, and did I mention prayer? And Prayer... Prayer without ceasing... A suffusion of prayer... And entry into God's theanthropic body on earth, the Church...

The Fathers do not have a "Models" of understanding about how theosis [divinization] works - They have descriptions...

The West has its 'models' of understanding -

The Eastern Orthodox Holy Fathers have theosis...

Encountering them is not to be taken lightly, nor as but an intellectual exercise in [western] model-making...

Arsenios

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Donald,

Thanks for the heads up on "Messianic Jews," I learn from you to question them. It is important to our little Jewish Mission. We are Lutheran so we are Trinitarian (in the Augistinian sense, of course). Also, be careful about labels. I don't think Moshe Rosen, founder of the actual "Jews for Jesus" organization is anything besides western trinitarian, though it may bear futher study. OTOH, there are varieties of "Messianic Judaism" out there, and they certainly bear testing.

Fr. A., Father John is correct about the Sabbellian Modalism of the UPC (hence, it is not the Holy Spirit they are "baptized with").

Richard M. and everyone interested regarding "nous,"

Patristic psychology developed its terminology from Plato and the Stoics, and is naturally Hellenistic. "Nous" is understood to be the "organ" for recieving objectively spiritual data (which can only be from God -- [bear with me please, I knopw I'm oversimplifying]). The Fall caused the darkening of the nous such that it could no longer receive the input. It is gradually cleansed through exercise in ascetics.

All true spiritual observation/reception is through the nous including, of course, the inspiration of Scripture. It takes "Spirit" to recognize spirit, though, so, it is not enough to simply read scripture (though God can cleanse the nous through doing so if He chooses). I don't think the Fathers deny the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

Yours,

Richard

[Richard McBride]

Monochos: Romanides

Blessed of the Lord Arsenios

As always, I feel you speak with considerable understanding, and I doubt that Romanides would deny agreement with your points.

However, I don't get the same reaction as you have:
"Likewise, if you want to know God, you go to God, and you do not throw away the means of knowing God because you have a text ABOUT God ..."

Not that I deny your interpretation (in fact, I believe you are right). But Romanides is making a different point. His point concerning the texts "about" God was, I think, addressed to the problem of Protestant dependence upon the Bible as though it WERE the Word -- that is, treating the Bible as though it WERE the ontological Revelation itself, and being that which the Protestants seek.
Contrarily, he responds as you mention, that the Bible is ABOUT the Revealed Truth.

He is reducing this matter to the 'experience' itself, and removing from the equation all third party commentary.

Otherwise, I find this Second Lecture of Romanides' to be not only about his 'Empirical Theology", but about Protestant interpretation of the Bible. And somewhere, he makes the specific point that contrary to Protestants, Orthodox receive Revelation empirically, through the nous -- presumably NOT expecting illumination in the way in which Protestants expect it.

For myself, I haven't gone back to find this quote on the "nous"; but can you do better than I have, Arsenios, and reference your interpretations as springing from Romanides' quotes? -- in other words, from which passages in Romanides (not the Bible) do you draw your interpretations?

Thank you, Arsenios, for sharing your notions with me. Mine may simply be a slight difference in opinion on what is the focus of Romanides' words around p.40-42.
But my question is about his interpretation of the work of hte Holy Spirit:
"My question is:
A Does Romanides mean that the Holy Spirit works through the nous? ..." whereas for the Protestants, He does not, or only partially does so?
and:
"if he means 'A', then may it not be that the Pentecostals too are receiving some communications through their nous, but interpret this reception wrongly -- not having advantage of Orthodox effulgence in these matters? "

richard mcb

[Arsenios]

The following is from the goa website [Greek Orthodox Archdiocese] - My question might be: How many stories like this abound in RC or Pentecostal 'spiritual' literature? Orthodoxy is filled with them...



Several brothers went to Abba Antonios to relate to him certain visions which they beheld and to ascertain from him whether the visions were true or of demonic origin. They had along with them a small donkey which died on the way. Just as they reached Abba Antonios, he, expecting them, said: “How did the little donkey die on the road?”

“How did you know this, Abba?” they said to him.

“The demons revealed it to me.”

And they answered him: “It is for this reason that we came to see you, for fear of being deceived, since we see visions and many times they come true.”

Thus, with the foregoing example of the donkey, the elder made it known to them that their visions came forth from the demons.


Arsenios

[Effie Ganatsios]

Reply to James A. Anthony - post no. 185

Your message made me think of something that has been troubling me for some time now.

The older you get the less you want ..... I think to be free we need to start with our possessions.
I have a beautiful home, full of lovely things that I have bought over the years. However, the last 2 or 3 years I find myself struggling under the weight of these things. I have been thinking of this a lot - and I fully understand what Jesus meant when he referred to the rich man and the kingdom of heaven.

The next step to freedom would be confronting our passions - our greed, our envy, our laziness, etc.

Or am I putting the horse before the cart?

Effie

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Richard M. and Arsenios,

Protestants are currently divided as to whether the Bible is "The Word" of God or "a word ABOUT God." Those of them (us) who take the former view are what you might call the Fundamentalists (but I would say not necessarily) and those the other the Liberals.

Protestant Conservative concern for its original stance on Scripture is a recognition that the Spirit who had them written through the minds and hands of men speaks to us through them and what He says there is objective to us. The concern about receiving enlightenment through the nous is that this is seen as subjective, "nous" being interpreted solely as "mind," and thus interior to the individual. Seen as a human organ of perception, like the eye or ear (eye of the soul, no less), what it brings us, when purified will be objective. This is not yet understood in current conservative protestantism.

Arsenios,

Catholics are rife with stories like that as are Pentecostals and even Jews (not to menion Moslems).

Richard

[Arsenios]

Richard McBride writes:

I don't get the same reaction as you have:
"Likewise, if you want to know God, you go to God, and you do not throw away the means of knowing God because you have a text ABOUT God ..."

Romanides is making a different point. His point concerning the texts "about" God was, I think, addressed to the problem of Protestant dependence upon the Bible as though it WERE the Word -- that is, treating the Bible as though it WERE the ontological Revelation itself, and being that which the Protestants seek.


Dear Richard - Thank-you for unpacking that a little, yet we are saying the same thing... For Protestants, the Bible is the Word of God, and for Orthodox, Christ is...


He is reducing this matter to the 'experience' itself, and removing from the equation all third party commentary.

In a way, yes, for all of Orthodoxy seeks the union of God and man, and what third party would anyone want for commentary? [:-)] Yet do you really think that he is seeing the Bible as merely 'third party commentary'? And that he is "reducing this matter to the experience itself"? This understanding would deny the catholicity of the Church, the mind of which [remember Paul writing "We have the mind (nous) of Christ"?] does not understand by "reduction", and certainly not by reduction to individual experience, but by fatherhood, for we become sons in Christ of our Father, and Paul writes "Ye have many teachers of the Gospel, but few fathers."

And this would seem to mean that it is not merely 'experience' that somehow self-validates that the 'matter is being reduced'to, but that by entering into the Body of Christ, the Church, through baptism, we enter into the Life of Him as well, and that within this life, events take place, and that among these events, some may be categorized as "spiritual", but it is not the spiritual events that somehow 'validate' the Church, but the Church that births the penitent into the events...

Am I making sense here?


...Romanides... makes the specific point that contrary to Protestants, Orthodox receive Revelation empirically, through the nous -- presumably NOT expecting illumination in the way in which Protestants expect it.

I think we have all had "religious experience" at various times while reading the Bible, and this, I think, is mostly what Protestants expect, along with great personal and theological insights during sermons and in prayers of crisis...

Yet what Romanides stresses over and over is the crucial and fundamental role of the purification of the heart [ascetic repentance] in preparation for the illumination of the nous... So that while we all have "spiritual experiences", we cannot therefore say we know anything...


...from which passages in Romanides do you draw your interpretations?

Alas, I am not a Romanides scholar, and have not quotations from which to argue interpretation. He was really important in my approach to Orthodoxy several years ago, and I recall the blessed simplicity of his thinking, and it's didactic nature, repeating over and over the sequence of purification of the heart, illumination of the nous, and theosis [divinization of the person]... And how it is that these are found in the Orthodox Church, and are only now, since the emergence of Orthodoxy, even being acknowledged as core Christian understandings. [Although Catholics and MSLs both think they have taught them all along, just not in those specific words... Yet show me the divinized believers [eg the ascetic saints]! You can sure meet them in Orthodoxy!



"My question is: A Does Romanides mean that the Holy Spirit works through the nous? ...whereas for the Protestants, He does not, or only partially does so?

and: ...then may it not be that the Pentecostals too are receiving some communications through their nous, but interpret this reception wrongly -- not having advantage of Orthodox effulgence in these matters? "


I think you will find your answer in the understanding that what is crucial is purification of the heart within the Body of Christ, His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church...

Outside the Church, the Holy Spirit is active... Indeed, some of the "purest" experiences of the Holy Spirit may be those found in totally abject sinners, where a drunk is called from his vomit in the gutters of life to a life of holiness... Yet that drunk is not [yet at least] a saint, but a wounded sinner receiving healing... Once healed, he then has the course of a repentive life to live, entering the struggle with his self, which would like another drink, among many other things, which, if he struggles within the Church and struggles well, he will overcome, taking up his cross daily... And in this overcoming, he purifies his heart, preparing it for illumination of the nous...

There is also noetic experience that comes to unpurified hearts that are outside the Church, and for that matter to those inside Her, [like me], which while received by the nous, comes from the demons, who also operate noetically... Which is why a spiritual father is so important, for prelest [delusion] is a common theme of Orthodox spiritual writings... And an experienced elder is needed for those inexperienced to follow, that they grow in Christ, and not in delusion...

Repentance within the Orthodox Church where experienced elders are found is the key...

Sorry for the too long length of this post...

Arsenios

[Richard McBride]

Thanks Arsenios

and to cover only one point, No, I am not speaking of the Bible as a 'their party' but of commentaries on the Bible. And then this raises other questions, but enough of that for now.

richard mcb

[M. Rallis]

Dear Richard McBride:

I found a few quotes from an old friend of yours that are on topic, I think, in terms of Romanides discussion of the nous and experience of the Holy Spirit.

“Accordingly, as soon as he has attained this state, God dwells in him and becomes for him all that he desires, or, rather, more than he desires... So God who dwells in him teaches such a man about things to come and things present, not by word, but by action and experience and reality. As God removes the veil from the eyes of his mind he shows him what is His will and what is useful for him. As for other matters, He persuades him not to be inquisitive about them or seek them or be curious about them, for he cannot boldly look into even the things that God reveals to him and shows him. When he stoops low to inquire into the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God he immediately becomes dizzy and is struck with amazement as he thinks of himself and who he is to be counted worthy to behold such things... He is constrained by trembling, fear, and reverence to cry, "Who am I, Lord... that Thou shouldest reveal such mysteries to me, unworthy as I am, and has wondrously made me not only to have a vision of such things, but even to participate and share in them?"
("Symeon the New Theologian: The Discourses", pp. 190-191)

“Your mind will see {God} in the form of a spiritual light with deep calm and joy. This light is the prelude of the eternal and primordial light; it is the reflected brightness of everlasting blessedness . When this appears every passionate thought will vanish and every passion of the soul be dispelled, and every bodily disease healed. Then the eyes of the heart are purified and see that which is written in the Beatitudes (cf. Mt. 5:8). Then the soul sees, as in a mirror, even its slightest failures; it is brought down to the abyss of humility. As it perceives the greatness of the glory it is filled with all joy and gladness; it is struck with amazement at this wonder beyond all hope and flows with tears as from fountains. Thus the man is entirely changed; he knows God and is first known by Him. It is this alone of all things earthly and heavenly, of both present things and things to come, of things troublesome and joyful, that makes a man despise them all. At the same time it makes him a friend of God and a son of the Most High, and, as far as this is attainable to men, a god (cf. Ps. 82:6).”
("Symeon the New Theologian: The Discourses", p. 236


“{Christ says} "The lamp of the body is the eye". What else does He mean by "the eye" than simply the mind, which will never become simple, unless it contemplates the simple light? The simple light is Christ. So he who has His light shining in his mind is said to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). When your light is thus simple, then the whole immaterial body of your soul will be full of light. But if the mind be evil, that is, darkened and extinguished, then this body of yours will be full of darkness (cf. Lk. 11:34). "Therefore be careful lest the light in you be darkness" (Lk. 11:35). So He tells us, take heed lest you think that you have what you do not possess (cf. Lk. 8:18). See how the Master Himself addresses us in the same way as His own servants, when He tells us, "Take heed that you do not deceive yourself and think that you have light within you, when it is not light but darkness." See to it that we too utter the same words as the Master to our fellow-servants and do not say anything that is perverted or false.”
("Symeon the New Theologian: The Discourses", pp. 340-341)

So in this last quotation, I see that the evangelist and St. Symeon both are pointing out that if our mind, nous, is still evil and full of darkness, then we are subject to self-deception, or being in a state of denial, thinking that we are communing spiritually with God, but in reality experiencing nothing of the kind. So,then, we have our life in the Orthodox Church, given to us as a blessing by our Lord, to be our unfailing guide for avoiding this state of deception.

“Angels do not have sensible voices, but mentally they offer up constant praise to God. This is their whole occupation; their entire life is dedicated to this. And you too, brother, when you enter your closet and shut the door, i.e. when your mind no longer wanders to and fro, but enters the inner recesses of your heart, and your senses are locked up and kept away from the things of the world, and in this manner you always pray, then you are like the holy angels, and your Father, seeing your secret prayer which you offer to Him out of the treasury of your heart, will bestow upon you openly great spiritual gifts.” (Pray without ceasing,St. Gregory Palamas, translated from the Russian Philokalia, Vol. 5)

[Arsenios]

Richard Leigh writes:


Protestant Conservative concern for its original stance on Scripture is a recognition that the Spirit who had them written through the minds and hands of men speaks to us through them and what He says there is objective to us.

Thank-you, Richard. That is one of the things about Protestant theology that is problematic for me, because the Bible is seen as inerrant, and as written by the Holy Spirit through the minds and hands of men.

The simple way of stating the truth is that Holy men of God, who were pillars of the Church [having overcome - Rev.], who had in the Church the mind [nous] of Christ, wrote the Bible in the Holy Spirit. Christ's Church, begun by Him with these men, is the pillar and the ground of truth, and that is why these books, which now form the cannon of NT Scripture, having found the approval of the Church, which wrote them, ARE the Bible... Protestants never seem to make the connection between the historic Church, the holiness of the ones who overcome within Her, and the Bible - They always seem to see it as the Holy Spirit writing a book, using available resources [minds and hands of men, as you say...] to do the physical part...

"[...And we believe] in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church..." That is item #4 in the Symbol of the Faith... And the Holy Spirit has guided, and indeed guides this Holy Church, from Pentecost to the present...


The concern about receiving enlightenment through the nous is that this is seen as subjective, "nous" being interpreted solely as "mind," and thus interior to the individual.

If this is a real concern, you see, then one cannot claim Biblical inerrance, for the Holy Men of God who wrote the Bible wrote it with a very enlightened nous, and did not write it as stenographers of the dictation of the Holy Spirit. You see, by having this 'concern', they destroy the basis of their faith in the Bible, which they regard as inerrant.


Seen as a human organ of perception, like the eye or ear (eye of the soul, no less), what it brings us, when purified will be objective. This is not yet understood in current conservative protestantism.

That is not true. [eg - the objectivity of the perception of a purified heart] Purification of the heart is a function of repentance, and is in greater part ours to do, though not apart from God... Enlightenment of the nous is God's doing alone, not ours at all... And we have no control of when or how it may come... When it comes, objectivity and subjectivity are not applicable concepts. As Paul reports, "Whether in the body or in the Spirit, I do not know - God knows..." Nor is Paul curious to know... For he has the mind of Christ, together with the rest of the Church that has 'overcome'... It is the passions that are overcome, yes? So that the determining factors are human purity of heart, and God's purposing in His suffusion of us with His uncreated energies...

Paul's account, btw, was one of divinization, not just enlightenment, but according to Fr. Romanides, the suffusion of the uncreated energies is the same in both events, the difference being the condition of Paul's soul, which was a very con-firmed in the praxisa of the Faith soul, and was not merely a beginning penitential one, like me... [Me who may never be enlightened, at this rate!]

Arsenios

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Effie,

As you know I've not been in Holy Orthodoxy very long; therefore, I cannot speak with authority as to the Orthodox position on what we must be released from first, to enjoy freedom.

To my simple mind (sorry Herman), it would seem that the main point is, in which area does God require obedience from us. A thought: Which strong man is the strongest in each of us, passions or possessions? Regardless of the answer as the holy Apostle said, "...for the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God, for the pulling down of strongholds..."

As we age we begin to age we see the fleeting shadow of "things", for what they really are, empty smoke and shadows. We focus on those things which are of eternal value, justice, mercy, kindness, love, compassion, truth. What I really want now, is for my family and children to be godly people. And, since religion is more "caught than taught", that means it starts with me. I dislike/hate responsibility!

To step back from my digression, to your original question, I don't know. No doubt Fr. A, Fr. John, or His Grace Archbishop Constantine could more accurately answer you. I fear that I'm caught in both my slavery to possessions (either the ownership or lack of them), and the weakness of my flesh in resisting the passions. LORD HAVE MERCY!

the unworthy servant

[Fr Averky]

Dear Effie,

I know exactly how you feel. Over the years, knowing that I like "fine" things, many people have gifted me with very beautiful painted icons, some of them quite old, and have given me beauitiful rugs and fine furnishings, and many small antique items.

When I became so very ill a few years ago, I realized how, not wanting to hurt people by giving their gifts away ( I had done so in the past, but people complained), I had allowed myself to have too many things. Since the beginning of the year, I have been steadily giving things away, and I am thinking of giving the larger icons to mission parishes. Having begun to do this, I feel such a sense of "freedom," and the small room I sleep in and say my prayers is quite bare, and I feel very at peace in it.

Take care Effie, and thank you for your prayers and kindness.

In Christ,

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Prof. McBride,

Looking at "The Shepherd," a publication of the Monastery of St. Edward the King in England, I saw an announcement that I thought might interest you.

Next Spring there is to be a colloquiem in England on Aesthetics in Western and Eastern Spiritually. If you or anyone would like, I will be happy to forward the information to you.

All the best,

Sinful
Fr.A.

[Richard McBride]

Blessed of the Lord Father Averky

Thank you for remembering my aesthetic interests -- wayward though they be.

And I would very much like to see the conference information.
If you have your scanner working you might email it. If not, you could send it to my box below:

Prof R D McBride
POB 140772
Dallas, TX 75214-0772

Perhaps then I could scan it and send it back, for anyone else who might be interested.

Thanks again, and I pray you gaining strength. Many Years, Father.

richard

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Arsenios,

Meaning no disrespect (re. your post), the subject of the simple sentence is the actor, the object is acted upon and is outside the actor. To be objective in an examination is to view all information as exterior to one. To be subjective is to draw from one's own personal feelings, thoughts and biases, to take something personally, as it were. There is no quesion that God is exterior to humanity, regardless of how close to the heart He may be. The statement only means that God and each of us are distinct from each other. Jesus tells us (I read in Holy Scripture) that the heart is full of evil, and for that reason it is what comes out of it that defiles someone. If my information about God comes from my heart (mind) alone, it is purely subjective and worthless, if my information comes from God, it is objective. What part does the nous play in all this? Nous, being interpreted "mind" is generally taken (in Protetantism) to be nothing more than an organ of thought. In this case what is in it is produced or generated there. If besides this it is an organ of perception (of noetic realities exterior to it) it reports objective information from the outside.

I think the Fathers agree that the nous is not to be trusted before it is purified, and certainly the purification process is one of repentance (engaged in through ascesis) and is God's gift. There is no questoin about this.


me "Seen as a human organ of perception, like the eye or ear (eye of the soul, no less), what it brings us, when purified will be objective. This is not yet understood in current conservative protestantism. "

thee That is not true. [eg - the objectivity of the perception of a purified heart] Purification of the heart is a function of repentance, and is in greater part ours to do, though not apart from God...

Do you mean the nous is not an organ that perceives, at least when purified, objective reality? Or perhaps you only mean that the nous can never be entirely objective?
Please clarify this. The first statement sumarizes the arguments of Romanides and Vlachos. There is no question that purifacion is a function of repentance, and that this is the work of God in the heart of man.

There is no question either that what Paul perceived was exterior, or objective to him. What he didn't know about his own subjective condition was beside the point other than hinting at where his own attention was not focused. Apostles had visions, but the visions were not subjective but perception of objective reality from God, obvously (for those who know anything about noetic reality) through the nous.

One could argue that delusions sent by the enemy are likewise objective reality, and I will grant that. It shows precisely the need to purify the nous through praxis and obtain or recieve the gift of discernment.

The Scriptures are God's gift as well, they are his God-breathed words and they are sufficient for reproof etc. I wouldn't propound a theory of inspiration, but given the fact that God is their author, I wouldn't go around questioning them, nor do I expect any of the Fathers do. It turns out, of course, that Spirit calls to spirit, and as you say the Church recognizes them, but it is not the church's recognition that makes them what they are, it is natural for the church, God's flock, to recognize her Shepherd's voice in them. A purifying nous is necessary to read them of course, but God gives his gifts through his words.

Richard

[Richard McBride]

monochos: Orthodox Spirituality

Those are very nice lessons, Michael [michael rallis post #61; 01nov03], and I take them to heart -- hoping that I may absorb their content. Especially, I recall: "So God who dwells in him teaches such a man about things to come and things present, not by word, but by action and experience and reality. As God removes the veil from the eyes of his mind he shows him what is His will and what is useful for him." It gives courage that maybe even I may receive the grace which banishes darkness from the soul.

We have not spoken enough on the list about that amazing understanding which is, "not by word, but by action and experience and reality." It is too easily passed over by everyone, I think (judging by the large number of students who have struggled with me to comprehend just in what way 'not by word', refers to a vast world of perceptions -- at the top of which is where, 'God removes the veil'.

Thank you very much, Michael, for helping me to learn.

richard mcb

PS
I suspect that Matthew Panchisin is learning a great deal in this 'non-verbal' format, as he pursues the writing of beautiful icons. That is truly a glorious way to serve God -- for those who are so blessed.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Dear Fr Averky:

Re Colloquium on Aesthetics in 2004:


yes, please send details.


the seeker (not least after brevity of expression in e mails)

[Arsenios]

Richard writes:


To be objective in an examination is to view all information as exterior to one. To be subjective is to draw from one's own personal feelings, thoughts and biases, to take something personally, as it were. There is no quesion that God is exterior to humanity, regardless of how close to the heart He may be. The statement only means that God and each of us are distinct from each other.

My dear Richard -

We are perhaps wandering from the topic a ways, and travelling onto the pathways of western philosophy, [beginning with the Greeks- Zeno, Parmenides, Socrates etc]... Where subject and object are two... Where the thing known and the known thing are different things.

The answer to this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity as basic to human understanding can be found in John 17, for the kingdom of God is within, and is not of the world, yet subjectivity and objectivity are of the world, for these philosophers were worldly philosophers...

And they were highly noetic... The nous as a conceptual term originated with the very earliest Greeks, and indeed Plato's and Socrate's focus was upon those matters which were, in their understanding, creative of the world, and therefore better than the world [viz the "idea world" of Plato, for instance...]


If my information about God comes from my heart (mind) alone, it is purely subjective and worthless, if my information comes from God, it is objective.

It is the nous, in a very important way, that is the 'Image of God' in us, for it is capable of apprehending truth without logical intermediation. It can look upon God, and can look upon material reality - And can perceive truth in either. Prior to the fall, the nous was focused solidly upon God... After the fall, we find its gaze scattered upon pleasures and pains, and the myriad concerns of a material existence that we will leave in a short time anyway... The fathers call this the scattering of the nous, and the job of discipleship is the refocusing of it upon God alone, and this cannot be done without the cleansing of the heart, which is constantly tugging at it for the concerns of the body and of the world... The heart needs cleansing, that the nous [the 'eye' of the heart] be enlightened...

So that in the world, there is the 'inner' nous and the 'outer' world, but in God, there is only oneness, God in us and we in God, and the issues of subjectivity and objectivity no longer apply... For we worship in Spirit and in Truth - eg we have union of the human person with God - Which is why *communion* is so basic to Christ's Church...


What part does the nous play in all this?

The nous is heavy-laden, struggling under the grave weight of sin, laboring mightily to keep the organism alive in a world where it cannot survive for very long, for it is dying in its sins in a fallen world... It's role is the essential role from the human perspective in salvation, for it was the nous that fell when Adam turned his nous from God and toward the counsel of the serpent...


If [the nous] is an organ of perception (of noetic realities exterior to it) it reports objective information from the outside.

You've only got half of it - the material half. The kingdom of God is within... You will not find this objective-subjective relationship with God, but as John writes in the 17th chapter, that they be one in Me, and I in You, and You in Me, and Me in them... For eternal life is knowing God, and is not knowing *about* God... [my paraphrases]


I think the Fathers agree that the nous is not to be trusted before it is purified, and certainly the purification process is one of repentance (engaged in through ascesis) and is God's gift. There is no question about this.

This is true even in material thought, for there is such a thing as an 'objective observer'... In football, we call them referees and umpires, for the players are passionately involved in the game, and cannot judge objectively... In a person, this means taking oneself emotionally out of the process of apprehension of reality, and focusing on facts... But the issue shifts in Christian discipleship, for it is the will that needs reform, and that unto obedience to God, and away from obedience to self, which is why Christ's call to discipleship begins: "If any is willing [ei tis thelei] to become My follower, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me..." A willing self denial carrying one's cross is quintessential Christianity... And the result of this is the freeing of the nous from its enslavement to self...

Non-Christian discipleship can arrive at this point - Freeing the mind from the body... The old Greek word for this is theoria. In theoris, it is the nous that is normally associated with the Greek verb eidomai, which in English translates as both see and know... For in this contemplation of direct noetic perception [theoria], one can 'see and know' [eidomai], and this is what Christ tells the first disciples, when they ask where He abides... "Come and 'see/know'..."

But the point of all this is that it is the enlightenment of the nous, not its purification, that gives Truth, and that truth is the Person of Christ, is God in us... It is this that distinguishes Christianity from other religions... And as Romanides argues elsewhere, when Christianity becomes 'religion', it is here that she goes astray...


me: "Seen as a human organ of perception, like the eye or ear (eye of the soul, no less), what it brings us, when purified will be objective. This is not yet understood in current conservative protestantism. "


thee: That is not true. [eg - the objectivity of the perception of a purified heart] Purification of the heart is a function of repentance, and is in greater part ours to do, though not apart from God...

Do you mean the nous is not an organ that perceives, at least when purified, objective reality? Or perhaps you only mean that the nous can never be entirely objective?/QUOTE]

Neither - I mean that the purification of the heart is prerequisite to the enlightenment of the nous, that repentance is the ongoing epistemological prerequisite of knowing God, for we know God through the eye of our heart, and this eye is the nous...

[QUOTE]Please clarify this. The first statement sumarizes the arguments of Romanides and Vlachos. There is no question that purifacion is a function of repentance, and that this is the work of God in the heart of man.

Repentance is a co-operative effort between man and God - Repentance is the work of man - It's effectiveness is the grace of God. Both are needed...


There is no question either that what Paul perceived was exterior, or objective to him. What he didn't know about his own subjective condition was beside the point other than hinting at where his own attention was not focused. Apostles had visions, but the visions were not subjective but perception of objective reality from God, obvously (for those who know anything about noetic reality) through the nous.

Paul says he doesn't know whether he was in the body or in spirit - God knows... You can see the [western philosophic-scholastic] subjective-objective dichotomy dissolving in his ascent in God to the Kingdom heaven. [I think you err to assume his ascent to be objective only when his witness is that he could not tell...]


One could argue that delusions sent by the enemy are likewise objective reality, and I will grant that. It shows precisely the need to purify the nous through praxis and obtain or recieve the gift of discernment.

Surely you are not ascribing objective reality to delusion??? But indeed in a way you are right, for spiritual is not necessarily from God, for the demons work in us [against us] noetically...


The Scriptures are God's gift as well, they are his God-breathed words and they are sufficient for reproof etc. I wouldn't propound a theory of inspiration, but given the fact that God is their author, I wouldn't go around questioning them, nor do I expect any of the Fathers do. It turns out, of course, that Spirit calls to spirit, and as you say the Church recognizes them, but it is not the church's recognition that makes them what they are, it is natural for the church, God's flock, to recognize her Shepherd's voice in them. A purifying nous is necessary to read them of course, but God gives his gifts through his words.

Scripture [NT] was written by holy men of God in Christ's Church whose holiness was a function of a purified heart and an enlightened nous... The nous itself is not so much purified as it is re-consecrated to God from the world... The process is one of concentration of the scattered nous.

I appreciate greatly, btw, your efforts to understand this matter - And pray that God will bring to you the enlightenment you struggle so hard to apprehend... I majored in the Greeks in the world long ago... And I am ever in awe and wonder of the Fathers on these issues...

Arsenios

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Richard Mcbride,

You are right, I'm learning a great deal. And contrary to what I used to think for me it's not a "non-verbal format" or benign realm because of my pride. The more one "writes" and the more proficient at writing one becomes the easier it is to fall into the wide pit of pride and judging. The proud dust in whose hand is in motion that trys to put forth the humility of the Saints knows the absurdity of his pride, but is still proud.

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

John 8

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Did any of the fathers interpret what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ wrote in the ground the first time and second time?

In Christ,

Matthew

[M. Rallis]

Dear Richard McBride:

Something that caught my eye in the second quotation from St. Symeon was the following:

“Then the eyes of the heart are purified and see that which is written in the Beatitudes (cf. Mt. 5:8). Then the soul sees, as in a mirror, even its slightest failures; it is brought down to the abyss of humility.” St. Symeon the New Theologian

And the close parallel to a phrase from Father Averky’s earlier post that had also caught my attention:

“I realized that now, after years and years of trials, sorrows, sufferings, temptations, many prayers, tears at being granted, by God's mercy, to see the depths of my pride and sinfulness, the book came alive for me...” Father Averky, post # 524 speaking about the book “Unseen Warfare”

The time of our life is so short to offer prayers of repentance, to wash ourselves in the re-baptism of tears of repentance. But if we never experience our soul being “brought down to the abyss of humility”, nor are we granted the Mercy “to see the depths of our pride and sinfulness” we remain in a state of denial, or deception, without a clue. Is this, then, enough for me, that our Lord grant me to see myself as I really am, full of pride and sin and every manner of evil, before the time for repentance has passed? From this perspective, the prayer “Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner” is not some technique, nor mantra, but is the cry of a heart desperate to be reconciled with its Creator, a cry for release from the idol worship of created things, and for a return, as the prodigal, to communion with our Heavenly Father.

[OrthodoxLearner]

Man Looking back on this thread is amazing, where I was then and where I am now, Going to be baptized into the Antiochian Orthodox Church with in the next 6 months. Man its weird reading old threads to see how far you have come from where you were then. Like I said before Its amazing what I knew then and what I still dont know today.

In Christ
OrthodoxLearner/Byzcath1

[John Wilson]

Don't let yourself get puffed up though. The amount that you have learned thus far is a mere drop in the ocean. Focus not on knowledge but on becoming holy and attaining the Holy Spirit for that is the path to salvation.

(From the "been there, still doing that" department)

John.

[Arsenios]

Orthodox Learner wrote:


"It's amazing what I knew then and what I still don't know today."

In airplane terms, it is the difference between the amount of altitude below your plane, to the amount of altitude that is above it... So little do we know...

Great quote, by the way... I was a lot smarter and knew a lot more when I was 17 than I do now - Then I knew it all, and now I know almost nothing at all...

Glory to God!
Arsenios

[OrthodoxLearner]

I was baptized in to the Holy Orthodox Church this Holy Saturday, 2004. Christ is Risen!
Its amazing isnt it?!

In Christ
Nektarios
AKA: OrthodoxLearner/(former) byzcath1

[Owen Jones]

Christos Anesti!
Semper Fi!

[Arsenios]

I was baptized in to the Holy Orthodox Church this Holy Saturday, 2004.

Glory to God!


Christ is Risen!

Truely, He is risen! Welcome home, Nectarius...


Its amazing isnt it?!

Yes...

Christ must be entered to be known...

And the grace bestowed upon the newly illumined is an awesome thing indeed - The rest of us are either all lumped up in battles past and present, or are in the process of getting those lumps! You, however, are in the radiance of newness, and the time for establishing your newly acquired [and to be acquired virtues] is at hand...

I have seen your approach on the net,
and I rejoice for you...

You are in my prayers...

And I thank God for you...

[geo] Arsenios

[Fr John Wehling]

Nektarios,

Christ is risen!

Many years to you who have put on Christ!

Fr John

[OrthodoxLearner]

Indeed He Is Risen!

Thanks to all! The Spiritual Strugle is already begun.

In Christ
Nektarios

[MT]

Dear all

I'm a new member of this forum, and I'm very much interessed to know more about Orthodox Spirituality, because I live in Russia and I belive that the Lord asks us to work for unity beteen Churches.

God bless you all
emaus

[Nektarios]

This stupid ByzCath1 person was me all those years ago. This thread here is when I messaged Father Averky for the first time and started my journey to Holy Orthodoxy. I was baptized into the Holy Orthodox Church right before our Father reposed in the Lord. He is the reason I am in the Ark of Salvation today. I miss him a lot. He did send me a few of his personal icons and books that I still have to this day that are a constant reminder of where I came from. I was converted to the Holy Orthodox Church right on this website. Interesting how God works.

[Mikhail Kolitwenzew]

Since you ask for a book about "Orthodox Spirituality", what more then could you ask for other than a book which is literally titled "Orthodox Spirituality"?

You can read a portion of the book online Here:

http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.00.htm

That is also the publishing web-page where you can also buy the book.


Orthodox Spirituality


Contents:

PROLOGUE

DEFINING ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.01.htm)
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY AND OTHER TRADITIONS (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.01.htm)
THE CORE OF ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.01.htm)
DEGREES OF SPIRITUAL PERFECTION
PRAXIS AND THEORIA (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.02.htm)
SACRAMENTS AND ASCETICISM
NEPTIC AND SOCIAL THEOLOGY (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.02.htm)
MONASTICISM AND MARRIED LIFE
CONCLUSION (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.02.htm)

[Christophoros]

Orthodox Spirituality: A Practical Guide for the Faithful and a Definitive Manual for the Scholar, by Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, published by St. Tikhon's Press.

Reviewers have noted some poor translation issues, but otherwise an excellent work.

[David Lanier]

One of my all time favorites is Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives the Nature of the Human Person (http://www.amazon.com/Deification-Christ-Perspectives-Contemporary-Theologians/dp/0881410306). By Panayiotis Nellas.