St Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery

[Vladimir Whitehead]

Does anyone have any information on the Greek Orthodox Monastery in Florence, Arizona. They were founded from Mt. Athos by Elder Ephraim. Some have accused that this monastery is a "cult". Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Love and blessings, Vladimir

[Richard]

St. Anthony's monastery in Arizona has a website:

http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/

[M.C. Steenberg]

Vladimir, I am not personally familiar with St Anthony's Monastery or its situation, though I have heard it mentioned on several occasions, usually within the context you suggest. A few thoughts:

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomaios I visited St Anthony's in November 1997. Generally the Ecumenical Patriarch does not visit and speak to groups known as cults. However, one topic of his discussion was a warning against fundamentalism, which is often one of the main charges leveled against the monastery.

I managed to find one news article on the monastery from the Voitha website (which, it should be noted, is decidedly not known for unbiased reporting), which sharply critiques the monastery for 'extreme fundamentalism'. An excerpt:


Archbishop Spyridon is also an ardent supporter of Fr. Ephraim [abbot of St Anthony's Monastery], whose ministry has reached legendary proportions. Much of his following is comprised of zealots who enthusiastically admit their devotion to Fr. Ephraim, somehow forgetting that Christ is the focal point of being an Orthodox Christian and it is His teachings we adhere to and follow. Indeed, we are followers of Christ, not of St. George, St. Andrew, Archangel Michael, and certainly not of Fr. Ephraim. In most instances, this type of mindset would be characterized as a cult, yet we are told by his spiritual children, who include Fr. George Passias, who serves as the Chancellor, Director of the Office of the Archbishop, and Chairman of the Finance Department, and Fr. Ganas, who serves as President of the Theological Seminary, that the practices of Fr. Ephraim represent the true form of Orthodoxy. Some of these practices include women cloaking their heads in Church and not allowing women to venerate an icon or receive Holy Communion when menstruating. The Ecumenical Patriarch addressed this pressing issue in his sermon at the St. Anthony Monastery in Arizona. He condemned this type of extremism and reaffirmed his devotion to a healthy Orthodox Church.

These types of fundamentalism threaten our very foundation. Fundamentalism breeds hatred and paranoia. Our Church cannot afford to tolerate such distortions of the true faith.

I have a strong feeling that this is likely exaggerated: much genuine asceticism can seem 'fundamentalist' to those who are not familiar with it.

But I admittedly do not know the whole story.

INXC, Matthew

[George Karras]

Not only are the "VOITHIA" statements exaggerated but lies, as was /is all of their other attacks on the monastery. The Voithia web site was / is a tool for the dark plans of those who fund it.

I have visited Mt. Athos and St. Anthony's several times. St. Anthony's is a very accurate replication of Mt. Athos in America with only one diference: women may visit St. Anthony's while Mt. Athos (or rather the Holy Mountain) is restricted to men only. To call St. Anthony's a cult is to call Mt. Athos a cult and, as any Orthodox knows by now, this is not only untrue but quite the opposite. Mt. Athos (and St. Anthony's) were are and will be the guardinas of Orthodoxy until the end of time.

As far as Elder Ephraim and the many attacks he has received since coming to America, all I can say is that the Evil one will always attack those whom he can not have. The Elder and his monks / nuns are re-awakening Orthodoxy, perhaps for the first time for many in America. This naturally does not sit well with the heretics who have penetrated the Orthodox Church and are pursuing its demise in America and elsewhere.

I strongly advise all to never ever listen or believe ANY of the attackes on the Elder and his monasteries. One needs only visit one of his monasteries and find out the truth for himself / herself. As Orthodox Christians our mouths and actions need to not only defend momasticism but support it as well -- they are the last guardian of Orthodox Spirituality in America.

Again, believe no one. Visit a monastery and decide for yourselves!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Thank you for your comments, George. It was very good to hear your perspective. As I mentioned earlier, I have no personal knowledge of St Anthony's monastery, apart from the general information that it is Athonite in practise and under the spiritual fatherhood of Elder Ephraim.

Your comments on monasticism are well received from my own perspective. There is an ever stronger need in the USA for the further flourishing of a genuine monastic spirit; a spirit which can seem harsh and foreign to a culture that is not familiar with it yet needs it desperately. True and healthy asceticism can seem 'unnatural' in an environment where ascetic thought and practise have little influence. Yet what is 'unnatural' in such a context, is precisely what is necessary. Living a holy life can seem unnatural and foreign to one who is accustomed to sin, but the goal is certainly not to be avoided because the unhealthy is more familiar.

And as to the Voithia news source: it offers an interesting perspective into the 'dissenting' side of American Greek Orthodoxy, but as is rather obvious to anyone who recalls its attitude and actions during the final year of +SPYRIDON's leadership of the Greek archdiocese of America, it is a far cry from faithful to the communion of Orthodox Churches.

INXC, Matthew

[thomas Zmija-horjanyi]

Thomas Zmija-Horjanyi
Kiel
Germany

Frist I would like greet you in the joy of the upcoming feast of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am an Orthodox Christian from the Northern Part of Germany. In Germany there are living about 1,2 Million Orthodox Christians and we have through the Grace of God 3 small skite´s for male in our Country. When going for pilgrimage there, I often met non-orthodox Christians, staying there with me. When I got them to know nearer by conversations, I found, that a great number of them should better be called non-yet-orthodox christians. They came to this Holy Places, to share the witness of the Church of Christ, to get gidiance and spiritual help from the Holy Fathers for their lives. A open and love-filled atmosphere helped them to take steps towards the Truth of the Church. I do not want to judge any person, but when reading the homepage of St Anthony's Monastery but I got several questions: First, it seems to me not very loving to me to put non-orthodox to Nartex during the Services an to have them for meal besides the brotherhood and the Orthodox. When reading the Holy Gospel, I saw that our Lord did it just the oposite way. St. Matthew converted from his sinfull way of life at the tax station, because Christ told him to come down from the tree, where he had gone to get a glimse of the Lord and that He Himself wanted to be his guest that night. Second, the overlasting number of the non-othodox did not seperate themselves from the Holy Church. They where born in non-orthodox families, which lived since generations in the non-orthodox Western Countries. So they are definitly not personal reposiable for not yet being Orthodox. But to visit a Orthodox Monastery may be one step for them to get nearer to the Holy Church. The custums and the rule there should be in a manner to help them, but not to refuse them. But I do not want to make this critic sugestions to the fathers of St Antony´s without the acknowlage that we all are in some way in the danger of the Parasee in the Temple, saying thanks to God, that we are not that way like this "Sinner" near or behind us. Only the awareness of our own sins and the long way, each of us have to go back to our Heavenly Fathers House can help us. May the Lord enlight our minds and save us all. So let us pray for oneanother: Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon us sinners! Amin.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Greetings Thomas,

The custom of allowing only fully (i.e. baptised and chrismated) Orthodox persons into the Nave (main area) of the Church while restricting non-baptised/non-chrismated to the Narthex is actually a very ancient practise of which we see record from the earliest days of Christian history. But it appears neither to have been uniformly practised throughout the Christian world, nor necessarily systematically enforced within specific dioceses. It was the 'general rule' in the early era of the Church, when the space of the holy Temple was regarded with an extreme sanctity; but there was always an element of 'economy' to its actual implementation.

Interestingly, there is varied regard towards it even on the Holy Mountain, which is often seen as holding to the strictest of ancient canons. At the holy monastery of Simonopetra, for example, all pilgrims (Orthodox and otherwise) are allowed into the Church, and all eat at the same meal with the monks (though visitors generally have a separate table so as not to disturb the fathers). At the holy monastery of Philotheou, on the other hand, non-Orthodox are served at an entirely different meal -- I am not certain of their rules on entrance to the katholikon.

Each monastery will have its own 'rule' set by the abbot and governing bishop. St Anthony's monastery in AZ appears to follow quite a strict policy on entrance into the Church and dining for non-Orthodox guests; but it is important to remember that this is most certainly not without precedent in the history of the Church.

Has anyone on these message boards actually been to St Anthony's monastery, or any of the other monasteries in the USA established by Fr Ephraim of Mt Athos? I wonder what impressions might have been made by the hospitality of the monks toward pilgrims. Oftentimes monasteries with strict policies such as the above, are most certainly gracious and welcoming to all guests, including non-Orthodox, and willingly explain and reflect upon the beliefs that give rise to their rules.

INXC, Matthew

[Anton I. Yermakov]

By the mercy of God, I have visited Saint Anthony's Monastery on the Saint's day (Jan. 17). My impression of the Monastery was a very positive one- I thought I was on Mount Athos (the chant during the All-Night Vigil was exactly like on Simonos Petra, a surprise to hear traditional Byzantine chant in America, same for Divine Liturgy) I have talked to Father Ephraim- He unfortunately knows very little English, and I know no Greek.

There is nothing "Cultic" about the Monastery.

I believe this slander is evil deeds of the Freemasons (or the like), and is not uncommon. There has been slander such as this in Russia in some secular newspapers. Do not believe in their lies.

Thank you very much,
Anton

[George Karras]

I strongly agree with Anton, I have visited many of the Elder's monasteries, both in Greece and the USA. I always find the monks / nuns simply wonderful, hospitable and helpful. They ask for NOTHING and are always willing to give and share with the pilgrims whatever they have (food and shelter). Not only that, but you can ask them to pray for you and loved ones, something that they do very willingly!

It is unfortunate the "western" customs characterize a quiet, prayerful monk who says very little and does not go around trying to be a cruise boat entertainment dorector as "unfriendly". Perhaps that is what some misunderstand as non-hospitable. We all need to keep in mind that these people are in constant prayer and are there to spiritually help pilrgims, NOT to entertain them.

As far as the Freemasons (and some other "groups"), you are right Anton: the presence of monasticism and the Elder in America has absolutely made them mad for whatever demonic reason. The slander and evil deeds against the Elder and his monsatics are many. I can not tell if it is envy or anything else. The latest I heard from one of "them" is that they are upset that pilgrims help the monasteries. Why? because in their sick, twisted thought process they trully believe that the money that is being donated to the monasteries would have gone to "them" if the Elder was not here... BTW, I have NEVER seen an offerring plate an ANY of the Elder's monasteries and I have NEVER been asked for ANYTHING, not even a dime! They have a small box next to the candles that pilgrims light. If you feel like putting some money there, it is OK. If not, that is OK as well. The only ones to know are you and God. Maybe our parsh churches should try that as well, what do you all think?

The best I can tell, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America is being controlled by few wealthy families who run it as their "tsifliki". This is why they had to get rid of Archbishop Spyridon -- his behavior did not fit their sick plans, whatever they may be. Lets ot forget that the previous Archbishop was also a strong supporter of the Elder, so I think that just poured more fuel on their demonic fire.
Anyway, back to the monks and nuns, they are simply wonderful and thank God He guided them to us, as we were all lost and marching towards the great spiritual void that the Freemasons and their bosses planned for us.

May our Saviour protect the Elder, his Abbots / Abbesses, monastics and monasteries and may He have mercy upon all of us!

[andreasofswedenrogerr]

Mr Georg Karras! Pleas explane this:


"As far as the Freemasons (and some other "groups")"

Why?

Andreas Roger Robberstad

[M.C. Steenberg]

As much as I do not wish to encourage the kind of negative characterisation of groups or individuals that seemed to prevail in the conflicts within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America some years ago, I must admist that I, like Andreas, am quite curious about this purported connection between the 'Freemasons' (I don't know how literally that title is being applied) and certain activities within the American Churches. I have never heard this accusation before, and must admit that it strikes me as particularly odd.

If anyone can expand on this, I'm sure that many would be interested. However, I would like to insist that the conversation remain constructive. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Anton I. Yermakov]

Greetings, Matthew

The Freemasons (that is, Freemasons Proper) are known to oppose Christianity since their appearance. Also, Orthodox are forbidden under pain of excommunication to become Freemasons.

(A reference note: Meletios Metaxakis, Athenagoras, and Bartholomaios of Constantinople were/are Freemasons> Interesting.)

However, those who were raised on Schmemann, Meyendorff, and other academicians are usually not aware of the more subtle problems in the Church, nor do they know about the Church as organism as opposed to Church organism.

Also, I could never understand why so many in the Orthodox churches in America are hostile to monasticism?

[Anton I. Yermakov]

Also, I am very familar with such attacks on the Orthodox Monasteries in Russia. They usually come from Freemasons and "liberal" media, this recent attack on Elder Ephraim is exactly like them- as if the same person coordinated them!

[Razhden Guriadze]

"Fremasonry" otherwise known as "Ancient Free (and?) Accepted Masons". There has always been gossip about them. I am Orthodox and not allowed to join(as if I wanted to) so I admit that I don't know a lot about them.

I used to have cassette tapes exposing them and other groups I will see if I can find them.

The cassettes were produced by a man in Oklahoma with the blessing of a valid Orthodox Metropolitan, or so I was told.

There have been many groups infiltrated by Orthodox with the blessing of the Church in order to find out what their belief and practices were.

Finding these reports may be difficult, however.

WE (I most of all) should not attack any person or group, especially without solid evidence.

God help us all to find Him, and stay in touch with Him,
ICXC,
Razhden

[1sinner]

HI I just signed up and am writhing as a guest now. My name will be PetrosL. In response to all the evil remarks abour Geronda Ephraim and his monasteries, which there are a few, it is nothing but the evil one as someone earlier mentioned. I have visited St. Anthony's and also the monastery in Ocala, FL whic his much smaller and doesn't receive as much traffic as St. Anthony's . I have also met Geronda Ephraim, I didn't get to speak with him though because he only speaks Greek and my Greek is elementary at best. But just by being in his presence you can feel his holiness, and when you kiss his hand it is fragrant. There is a story why he came to America from Philotheou Monastery (Mt. Athos) To establish the Monasteries keep true Orthodoxy alive. Rather we like to admit it or not the Orthodox Churches in America havw slowly been becoming Westernized. Some Churches have even let Catholic Bshops and other faith priests join the Liturgy. We can see this through this union that Orthodox and Catholics alike want. Why do we want to join with a heritcal church? If they denounce the things they did to cause the schism and rejoin US, then that would be fine, but that will not be the case. Anyway enough about that, the point is The Monasteries set up here by Geronda Ephraim is not a cult, it is the basic fundamental's of Orthodoxy. Praying without ceasing as St. Paul said, fasting, almsgiving,and Church, also obedience elders. Life is not about what movie your going to see, or what club to go to, or the next girl your going to have sex with, that is not life. That is death, death of your soul, just for temporary pleasures. I myself have been thinking of joining the Monastery, with a blessing of course. I asked my confessor Fr. Passios (He is under Geronda Ephraim at St. Anthony's and he speaks english) how do you know if you should become a monk, he said pray on it and your answer will come. If it was truly cult like they would be asking all the men and women that they see to join them. Ok enough for now, I think I babbled enough..thank you.

[Arsenios]

St. Anthony's is wonderful! It is a veritable Garden of Eden in the desert, and its monks and its Abbot, and its founder, are all tops in my book. I just got back from there, and am utterly recharged and challenged for new tasks ahead. [Please pray for me!]

And so is St. John the Forerunner's women's monastery in Washington State. [Our parish has 2 nuns there.]

There does seem to be a side of Greek Orthodoxy that seems hell-bent to get rid of Elder Ephraim and his efforts here, but I have not met them - All the Greeks I met there were awesome Christians...

I hope to return and stay longer soon...

Arsenios

[Basil Shannon]

One Greek Orthodox family in Tennessee, I believe, mourned the separtion of their teenage son into the monastic life at St. Antonys monastery. They contacted an anti-cult group headed by Rick Ross to try and help get the son back. The young monk was blessed to give his side of the story, which is available online. I can't find the link now, but when I do I'll post it here. Rick Ross also has a site with the parent's side of the conflict. I think it merely amounts to a collision of American culture and Athonite monasticism.


Basil

[Herman Blaydoe]

Here 'tis:

Athos in America
http://www.athosinamerica.org/

[Arsenios]

One thing I can say with no hesitation is this: I think that the implanting of this Athonite monastery, especially this one, but all of those implanted by Elder Ephrem, is THE most important and valuable thing to have happened in the USA to date, bar none...

Arsenios

[Leandros]

One Greek Orthodox family in Tennessee, I believe, mourned the separtion of their teenage son into the monastic life at St. Antonys monastery. They contacted an anti-cult group headed by Rick Ross to try and help get the son back. The young monk was blessed to give his side of the story, which is available online. I can't find the link now, but when I do I'll post it here. Rick Ross also has a site with the parent's side of the conflict. I think it merely amounts to a collision of American culture and Athonite monasticism.

Dear friends,

Thanks, for the link (http://www.athosinamerica.org/) of the young monk’s interview. From my experience, the way that young Nikos became monk is most inappropriate way and certainly most un-Orthodox.

The current message has some comments about the interview of monk Father Theologos, as it is presented in the above link. So, my comments are not based on any other information and may be unjust in case this interview is misprinted.

Let me cite some “parts” of his interview.

As young monk Theologos says in his interview, “There were several different careers He considered”, as a young boy:

to be an English Major, because I loved reading literature, and always got good grades in that subject,
to be a physical therapist,
a priest and
a monk.Because “he could not decide on his own what was the will of God, he asked for God’s guidance”. “I am just an idiot” he thought and “I don't want to do something that God don't want me to do”.

With such a dilemma in his heart he asked for guidance from his confessor/spiritual father, Father Demetri, “on the phone, and said, I've been thinking about becoming a priest or a monk, and he said to him, "Son I don’t have that kind of spiritual discernment to say whether or not this for you. You need to ask a monastic with an hesychastic spiritual life”

In the meantime young Nikos “was also looking into seminaries, to become a priest”.
In 1996, the second semester of his freshman year in college, young Nikos met Elder Ephraim (following Father Demetri’s advice). At that time Nikos was 18. In the interview young monk says that: “I went into confession with him but it wasn’t really confession in that I really didn't confess, in fact the only counsel I got was from this one question I had: I told him I was thinking about becoming a monk or priest, I wanted to serve the church in some manner. I told him that I felt a strong draw to that, that that was how I wanted to lead my life.

And it was really quick, the response. It wasn't a half hour indoctrination or brainwashing or anything like that. What he said was, "the only way you'll know is to go to Arizona and try it out. Try it out doesn't mean we're going to put the shackles on you. He made clear from the beginning that it was a choice.

Try it out, and see how the monastic life fits you, and that's how you know. I asked about being a priest, he said, you can be a priest at the monastery possibly. But that of course is a special calling too. From that point I decided, OK, next summer I'm going to go to Arizona to try it out."

At this point, young Nikos had already visited a convent at Saxonburg five times, each time for short period, as Nikos/monk Theologos says in his interview: “It just made me want to go back there again. After the first visit I went there again during the following Fifteen Days of August, for a week or so of it before the Feast of the Dormition, and that was real nice and I really hated leaving because I just felt so spiritually at ease and so much spiritual rest, so to speak, that I didn't want to leave. I'd work at whatever jobs they asked me to do, do some shopping for them, whatever. I really felt 'at home.'

It was somewhere around that time that I started asking God in my private prayers, because I was nearing the end of high school and thinking about college, about direction for my life.”

So, after the meeting with Elder Ephraim, Nikos decided to go “try it out”. Nikos says in his interview: “I know it may seem like I was in a rush, but I didn't want to meet God on Judgment Day and be asked ‘why didn't you heed My call?’ I had to try it out for the sake of my peace of mind and obedience to God’s holy will.”

Then Nikos/monk Theologos says that at the age of “18 years old, almost 19 he enter the monastery as a novice, to ‘try it out’” and “at the age of 20 he was tonsured as a monk”.

As his parents were objecting his decision, he says that: “I don't think it is at all too young. It's the proper age to make the decision, in fact, not too young and not too old. Someone who is 18 at least in America is at that point where they need to make a decision of where their life is going to be, to choose their career, going to college and leaving home, to find some direction in life, and that’s around the time I got my calling. It needs to be pointed out also that when someone is 18 in America and most countries they are old enough to join the army. Some of the points my parents bring up about cults, you find the same things practiced in the army--indoctrination, physical hardship, strict obedience. It’s all there. And here I'm physically safe. If I get sick, I get a doctor, I can eat to satiety, here I have all the comforts, central heating and cooling. In the army any day you can get sent off to kill or be killed. That's not going to save your soul though. I don’t know how much spiritual benefit anyone can get from joining the army. It's a big life choice. If it's legal to join the army at 18 it’s definitely OK to join Christ's army. If someone says a young adult is too young at 18 they are also criticizing American law that says a young adult at 18 years is old enough to make their own life choices.”

Young monk Theologos says in his interview: “I went to the monastery and saw the daily regimen, confession, vigils, and through personal prayer and all that, it fit me like a glove. As you can see from my earlier story I had a lot of zeal and desire, I wanted to live a spiritual life, but I was never quite satisfied. I had a really deep thirst for living the full Orthodox Christian spiritual life, and the only place it was really satisfied was the monastery, living the monastic life with the other monks. So there wasn't really a decision made, it just felt so good to be there I didn't want to leave, I didn't even think about leaving. It was suggested several times by my parents, and by the devil in my thoughts, but I knew this was the place. It wasn't really a moment where I said, Oh, I'll stay here. And there wasn’t anyone who told me, no, you’re not going to leave. There's no point in going back. That was never said. In fact it was made known to me that if you think to leave then you’re free to go, none of us is holding you here.”

These were some parts of the young monk’s interview. It is an interview of a young boy that lacks elementary experience of Church’s life as a member of the body of Christ. I understand that a young boy may use a plain language in order to express himself, and indeed monk Theologos did just that, but the faith that he presents as his Christian faith is a logical, secular faith of a young person that faces the incomprehensible reality of the Church in a personal experiential realization of being surrounded by the marvels of unconceivable. Monk Theologos is honest in his ignorance. He presents no experience from a personal relation with Christ. He is related with an abstract ideal of God, which is so appealing to him because in this relation “Nikos” has the opportunity to be transformed into “monk Theologos”. He has the opportunity to be justified by leaving behind his old “self” for a new one.

He started from the point which was the initiation for all of us. For every Christian the first step is the realization that, in Christ we can be those that we are not. For every Christian the realization of “salvation” is a step “into the future”. For every Christian the meeting with the “eschaton” (esxaton) is a trip into the future. Nikos was no exception. As a young boy he experienced this transcendental experience when he met the blessed way of monastic life: “It just made me want to go back there again…I went there again …and that was real nice and I really hated leaving because I just felt so spiritually at ease and so much spiritual rest, so to speak, that I didn't want to leave. I'd work at whatever jobs they asked me to do, do some shopping for them, whatever. I really felt 'at home.'” Look how he speaks of his experience in his interview, not one word for his relation with Christ. He did not meet Christ at the monastery. He met a new marvellous way of being “spiritually at ease” and “so much spiritual rest”. He even worked “at whatever jobs….whatever”. There is nothing wrong with these experiences, but they are not “spiritual”, they are secular.

There are several non-Christians that visit the monasteries of Mount Athos, just for that kind of experience. This experience is not a “calling” for monastic life!

Young Nikos needed guidance and he asked for it, but he never got it. I can not understand why his spiritual Father Demetri have told him that “Son I don’t have that kind of spiritual discernment to say whether or not this for you. You need to ask a monastic with an hesychastic spiritual life”! And he answered to this question on the phone ! Such a spiritual father is really a mystery to me. Since when is there a difference between a parish priest and a monk priest? Since when a young boy, genuine in his feelings and authentic in his questioning and novice in Faith can not be guided by an Orthodox Priest over these simple matters? Monk Theologos says about himself that: “I wasn't really living an active Orthodox Christian life. I had never heard of fasting before. I thought monasteries were a Catholic thing. Confession, that was a Catholic thing too. I only knew about maybe fasting in the morning on Sunday before communion, I had never heard much more about spiritual life than that”. And how come that, when this young boy of 18 years old, that was introduced in practising faith just a couple of years ago, confesses over the phone that “I've been thinking about becoming a priest or a monk”, his confessor had no answer to give! And this same priest “was made chaplain of Nativity of the Theotokos Convent” by the bishop of Pittsburgh!

Then, young Nikos asked the same thing to elder Ephraim, whom he believed to be a proper spiritual father to ask for guidance. Monk Theologos says in his interview that what Elder Ephraim said was, "the only way you'll know is to go to Arizona and try it out." Let me emphasize, "try it out." Try it out doesn't mean we're going to put the shackles on you. He made clear from the beginning that it was a choice."

Is this an Orthodox answer from an experienced Orthodox spiritual father? Is the orthodox spiritual guidance a “trial and error” methodology? I do not now, whether Nikos misunderstood the answer of Elder Ephraim, but he says that he met Father Ephraim for half hour, and in this sort period of time he received this answer from Him.

Is this a parody of Orthodox spiritual life or not ? First a young man, fresh in faith, asks his spiritual father “about becoming a priest or a monk” and he receives the answer “ask elsewhere, I can not tell you. You need to ask a monastic with a hesychastic spiritual life”. This is of course a direct reference to Father Ephraim. Then, the same young man following his confessors directions ask Father Ephraim the same question and he receives the unbelievable answer “try it out”. This story is either not true, or it is one of the biggest failures of Orthodox priesthood. Orthodox Church DOES NOT ask people to “try” the monastic life. NEVER DID SO and NEVER WILL BE.

What was then left for young Nikos, but to leave his family and to “try” the monastic life? But, in his heart there was no room for return. After the ridiculous answers that he received from Father Demetri and Father Ephraim, he was already on a “mission to succeed” – the “trial” was over even before it started. In his interview monk Theologos says: “So there wasn't really a decision made, it just felt so good to be there I didn't want to leave, I didn't even think about leaving. It was suggested several times by my parents, and by the devil in my thoughts, but I knew this was the place.”

This is the most important point in young monk’s interview: “…it just felt so good to be there I didn't want to leave…I knew this was the place”. The whole issue for monk Theologos, as it is presented in his interview, is “being in a place that felt so good”. Well, this is not the Orthodox monastic life, nor is it the criterion for being a monk. For a newcomer in faith this is the naive way to position himself in the Church. And it is the duty and the work of his spiritual father to provide the realization of his true position in Church - in freedom and in personal relation with God.

Monks are not in a position of hedonistic, opportunistic, eudaemonist place from which they consume happiness and joyfulness. Monks are in relation with Christ and through Him, in Spirit, with the Father. This relation is beyond “feeling good, in a place”. This relation is about being wherever God is, uninterruptedly glorifying His Glory. Being a monk is to live the life of Angels on earth, literally.

Young Nikos should have been told that, becoming a monk is not a career “considered” among others, but a genuine way of being a Lover of Christ, burning inside the heart from Christ’s Love. But, on the contrary, young Nikos thought that it was a choice of career between becoming “English Major” or a physical therapist, or a priest or a monk!

Young Nikos should have been told that, “God’s will” is not about living a predefined life, but it is about living a “blessed” life, it is about being in honest, personal, loving relation with Christ. “God’s will” is to realise that we are absolutely free to decide for our lives the kind of life we want to live. In “God’s will” all ways of honest and loving lives are blessed, as long as our life is a service to our brothers and sisters in Christ. This kind of life is both the monastic life and the family life. As elder Paisios have told to a young man, who had the same dilemma like Nikos had: “You are free to choose your way of life according to your heart, and your personal ‘will’ shall be adopted by God as “His will’. God does not have a ‘program’ for you. You are free to decide for yourself and God in His humbleness will accept your pleasure as His. The important thing is to live your life in the perception that you are always in His Presence and in His Providence”. But, young Nikos was afraid that “He might do something that God didn't want him to do”. Nikos should have been free from his fear. He should have been told that God is Love and that “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.”.(1 John 4:18)

Young Nikos should have been told that, becoming a monk is not a ministry of “serving the church”. Becoming a monk is a relation with God beyond wilfulness. Becoming a monk is like being in manic love with God, beyond logic and reason. Being a monk is the personal maturation in Christ.

Young Nikos should have been told that, becoming a monk is not like becoming a soldier. It is not a matter of “making own life choices”. Becoming a monk is being in a relation with God. It is a mutual way of being in relation with each other.

Young Nikos should have been told that, when he will meet God on Judgment Day he will not be asked ‘why didn't you heed My call?” He should have been told that he had not “to try it out for the sake of his peace of mind and obedience to God’s holy will”.

All these things, were never not told to Nikos and they neither have been experienced by him (this is obvious from the way that he presents himself in the interview).
Finally, healthy Orthodox monastic tradition is that a member of the church becomes a monk/nun after a long time of Orthodox practice and it is absolutely necessary to have the blessing of his/hers parents (in case they are orthodox too). There are only few occasions, under peculiar circumstances, that a person is allowed to join the monastic life against his/hers parents will. If parents have objections, then the child must respect them and must wait to join the angelic life only after their death. This obedience to the parents is much more welcomed from the God, even more welcomed than many years of ascetic life.

It is a common practise by many to distort the Holy Words of Christ "If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother, wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) and “Verily I say unto you there is no man that hath left house or parents or brethren or wife or children for the kingdom of God’s sake who shall not receive manifold more in this present time and in the world to come life everlasting." (Luke 18:28-30) in order to present them as alibi for their disobedience to their parents. These advices were given from Christ for ANY MAN (EVERYONE), both for monks/nun and for laity. Their meaning is that, if ANY MAN considers the essential/natural relations, even the natural relation with himself, as part of his hypostasis/personhood then he cannot be His disciple. We must consider our father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, even our own selves, as individual hypostatical/personal ways of being in relation with the others, in order to be engaged with Him in the relation of disciple. If we follow our natural relations with our relatives then they would become extension of ourselves and we will use them in their natural obligatory relation with us. Freedom of relation can exist only in personal relations that are not determined by nature, but by mutual acceptance of each other.

Young monk's parents point of view can be found here (http://www.rickross.com/reference/ephraim/ephraim8.html).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My Dear Leandros,

As a monastic of the Orthodox Church for the past 26 years let me assure you that the young man's account of how he became a monastic is entirely proper & familiar. I entered a monastery (of a completely different jurisdiction- not one of Fr Ephraim's monasteries) in much the same way myself & in due time learnt the wisdom of this way.

When or if one feels an attraction to the monastic life it is often difficult to discern whether this actually comes from God or not. So it is more than proper to go to one's spiritual father or parish priest to ask about this. But here it is also quite normal to hear that it is difficult to exactly discern God's will in which case the best thing to do would be to speak with a monastic spiritual father. If you look at this carefully you will see that the parish priest has not avoided his spiritual responsibility by saying "I do not know"- as if admitting one does not know is a sign of deception!. Our main effort as priests is absolutely NOT to presume to be mouthpieces for God. Rather it is to guide a person into God's will which is something quite different. So the advice the young man received from his priest was not at all wrong. It was just saying in effect- "if you wish to discern God's will try speaking to a monastic spiritual father." There is nothing un-Orthodox about this.

It is also very proper to discern whether God is drawing one to the monastic life by "trying the life out". After all this must first be blessed by the abbot & spiritual father of the monastery- and usually this only occurs after many visits, in other words 'testing'. The thought that one should first be inspired by some sort of 'relationship with Christ' would set off so many alarm bells for most spiritual fathers that normally this would actually be a sign that the person had gone very much astray in coming to the monastery.

In fact the safest sign that one is indeed being led by God to the monastic life is this attraction of the heart the young man refers to in his own way. And then the safest way to discern whether this calling was genuine or not is simply to go to the monastery and struggle to live out that life.

It is a fact that when it comes to monasticism the proof is in the pudding as they say. If this is not a true calling then you simply won't be in the monastery a year later.

One would wish for the blessing or approval of one's parents before joining a monastery. But unless one is a minor & under the legal supervision of one's parents we must put God before family. After all it is quite common for parents to not accept or understand God's will for their children because their affection for them is worldly. In this case the Church does bless a decision that goes against the will of one's parents & this is witnessed to in the life of the Church- for example we read of this very often in the Lives of the Saints where young people became monastics despite the strong opposition of their parents. What also of the many examples of mothers who actually encouraged their children to offer themselves as martyrs when the opportunity presented itself?

When I read the accounts of the young man and his parents about a year ago it seemed to follow exactly the pattern of parents who strongly resist the will of God. We can sympathise with the parents because an essential aspect of accepting God's will for one's children is dying to one's own will for one's children which is difficult. Here it seems the parents (who are also Orthodox I think) did not accept- or were not being guided- to take up their cross in regards to their children. And the predictable result of this was the turmoil that followed.

Our tragedy is that we hate and fear the Cross of Christ. We hear the words in Church about the Cross over and over but yet we choose to relegate this all to the realm of fantasy- "that's just for unbalanced people or saints" is literally the attitude many of us have! This comes from a conscious and usually private choice to pursue a life of this world rather than what we are hearing in the very church we attend. Or it can also be that since so many people around us in the church pursue an openly worldly way of life it seems natural for us to go this way also. Accepting the lying delusions of this world we believe that the pleasures of this life are more enduring & real than what the saints pursued.

The result of this however is constant clashes with life itself since God has providentially arranged that life is unstable and that other people have free will. The way out of this constant conflict with other people and life itself is to consciously accept the cross which Christ has allowed in our lives. In this way from a curse to avoid which becomes a defining part of our way of life the cross may become the blessing and joy Christ intends it to be.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Juliana Lerman]

I just wanted to add that Elder Ephraim speaks Greek (not English) and he has someone translate his words to others. I know this because one of my dear friends has him as her spiritual father. At her confessions the translater is present. However, she told me that many times it seems that he can spiritually feel her pain about some of her sins....because just before she confesses them the Elder begins to pray. I have not personally met him, but I have seen a video of a talk he once gave about spiritual warfare. Of course it was translated, but I noted his thoughtfulness and gentleness of manner. He is an elderly man who has devoted his whole life to God; so I would find it suprising if he would give advice casually as Leandros seems to think. It is possible that some of the words in the interview were different as they were translated and then spoken by the teenaged boy. Blessings to you all, Juliana

[Elias Young]

Greetings:

I met "the young Nikos (aka Fr. Theologos)" in the Fall of 1997 and spent a year around him, working with him at the St. Anthony's Monastery in question. He impressed me as a fine young man, full of joy and at times exhibited a decidedly
"unmonastic" mirth and sense of humor. :-)

One thing those across the sea may not be aware of is the intense political pressures being brought to bear within the Greek Church to cut off from their spiritual roots and "become American". Now, as a dyed-in-the-wool American myself, I can say I love this country. But there are ideas upon which this country was founded that some times come into direct conflict with what some might call the "orthodox ethos"/mindset or "phronema". Some of these ideas entail such notions as the embrace of radical individualism and radical hatred of the monarchial/patriarchal economia by which the Church has functioned over the past 2000 years+.

Many of the Greek laymen who have advocated for "autonomy/autocephaly" for the Greek American church mention such signs of readiness for the same as: * their secular influence in the American political processes, * their huge financial resources, * their professional and educational achievements...indeed they mention everything except their spiritual growth or status within the kingdom of God. Indeed, their perhaps well-intentioned but misguided ouster of former +Met Spyridon in 1998-99 also sought to tar the reputation and motives of those Greek monasteries which had begun to revive the spiritual hopes in the hearts of discouraged American Orthodox Christians of all backgrounds.

Suffice it to say that much of the controversy over Niko's entry into the monastic way was used by strong political forces outside of his immediate family as one of the "issues" by radically secularized Greek Americans were seeking to "have it their own way" in matters of the Church. Seems that gaining control of "the world" was not enough for them. They wanted (and still want) the Church under their thumbs as well.

Or so it seems to me...

Sincerely (and without rancour),
elias

[Leandros]

From “Life of St John Chrysostom, Chapter III.-His Conversion and Ascetic Life” (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-03.htm#P111_1997):

"...He entered the class of catechumens, and after the usual period of three years of instruction and probation, he was baptized by Meletius in his twenty-third year (369 or 370).…..

…The first inclination of Chrysostom after baptism was to adopt the monastic life as the safest mode, according to the prevailing notions of the church in that age, to escape the temptations and corruptions of the world, to cultivate holiness and to secure the salvation of the soul. But the earnest entreaties of his mother prevailed on him to delay the gratification of his desire. He relates the scene with dramatic power. She took him to her chamber, and by the bed where she had given him birth, she adjured him with tears not to forsake her. "My son," she said in substance, "my only comfort in the midst of the miseries of this earthly life is to see thee constantly, and to behold in thy features the faithful image of my beloved husband who is no more. This comfort commenced with your infancy before you could speak. I ask only one favor from you: do not make me a widow a second time; wait at least till I die; perhaps I shall soon leave this world. When you have buried me and joined my ashes with those of your father, nothing will then prevent you from retiring into monastic life. But as long as I breathe, support me by your presence, and do not draw down upon you the wrath of God by bringing such evils upon me who have given you no offense."

These tender, simple and impressive words suggest many heart-rending scenes caused by the ascetic enthusiasm for separation from the sacred ties of the family. It is honorable to Chrysostom that he yielded to the reasonable wishes of his devoted mother. He remained at home, but turned his home into a monastery. He secluded himself from the world and practiced a rigid asceticism. He ate little and seldom, and only the plainest food, slept on the bare floor and frequently rose to prayer. He kept almost unbroken silence to prevent a relapse into the habit of slander."

This was the behavior of a Saint man that after his mother's death he "spent four years in the toils of wilderness life, living the ascetic life under the guidance of an experienced spiritual guide. And here he wrote three books entitled, "Against the Opponents of Those Attracted to the Monastic Life", and a collection entitled, "A Comparison of the Monk with the Emperor" (also known as "Comparison of Imperial Power, Wealth and Eminence, with the True and Christian Wisdom-Loving Monastic Life"), both works which are marked by a profound reflection of the worthiness of the monastic vocation.

For two years, the saint lived in a solitary cave in complete silence. But the saint was obliged to return to Antioch to recover his health.

This same Saint man that obeyed to his mother, "He defends monastic seclusion on account of the prevailing immorality in the cities, which made it almost impossible to cultivate there a higher Christian life."

This same Saint that postponed joining the monastery, for the sake of his mother, when his friend decided to marry and leave the ascetic brotherhood he wrote a treatise, an exhortation to his friend Theodore, in two letters, asking him "In answer to the prayers of the saints may we speedily receive thee back, dear friend, sound in the true health"

Dear friends,

I think that St Chrysostom's life is the Orthodox way of being a monk: being truthful to God and at the same time being truthful to fellow man. When it comes to priorities, self is always the last priority and God and the “others” is the premium priority. The “call” for monastic life is not an end in itself. It’s the absolute way of being the “servant” of God and of everyone.

Well, if someone is trying to disorient us from "the way of being servants of God and of everyone", then we must refuse this temptation. But in every case, literally, the power of disorientation is within and the fight against this power is a “fight” against “self”.

"Others" are not our hell; they are our Paradise. Even when they force us to miss the opportunity to save ourselves, they still are our Paradise.

I know several cases, some are very close relatives of mine, of parents that are totally incapable to comprehend "God's will" for their children, regarding their children’s monastic calling. Is it legitimate to have "God's will" enforced upon them, for the salvation of their child? Is it "God's will" the intolerable pain and loneliness of the parents?

Let me present a personal story. When I was 15 years old, the father of my friend was afraid of his son's piety and he did not let him to participate in Sunday’s liturgy every week. My friend’s spiritual father advised him to obey his father’s orders and to church once a month. A couple of years later his father died and my friend was free from his paternal restrictions. Of course, if his father was to live longer, my friend would have followed his orders for some years further. My friend’s blessed spiritual father guarded his spiritual child and had taught him the virtue of obedience, in the most practical way. If my friend was to disobey his father’s orders, how could he obtain then the obedience to God? It is the most paradox situation for a Christian not to have the patience to endure his parent’s orders for a limited time and to want to follow God’s orders for ever. In both cases the Christian must “force” himself in obedience. He must “fight” against “self” in order to preserve his relation with the other person. The dilemma of the “will of God” against the “will of the parent” is a pseudo-dilemma. A human being is not a consumer of external “will”. In Christ, a Christian is a person in loving relation with God and with others.

Even in cases of severe pathological paternal/maternal opposition to child’s piety, the child -- parent relation must not break for the sake of piety. A child must exit from the child-- parent relation with the proper maturation of the child as a person, which needs the appropriate time and it is a mutual dissolvent of both natural childhood and natural parenthood. This maturation is not the effect of Christian faith.

In cases of young boys and girls that are “abducted”, by themselves, from the family and they become isolated in a pious Christian brotherhood’s life, against the consent of their parents powered by the justification of legal adultness, Church becomes an abstract ideal and Church body is reduced in the specific brotherhood.

Our “personal” obedience in “God’s will” can not be “personal” at all. What is “God’s will” ? (1 Timothy 2:4) “(God) wants all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”. The phrase “all men” makes the personal obedience to “God’s will” impossible when taken out from our relation with the others. Only in our relation with others we become “all men” and only then we can exercise our obedience to His will of “all men to be saved” and “to come to this specific knowledge of the Truth”. In this context, we must dissolve the natural child-parent relation with our parents in a mutual acceptance of our personal maturity, in the course of time, which is the only way to establish the relation of “all men” that is a relation of persons and not a relation of nature. The child-parent relation is not destroyed by the will of either one of them. It is transformed by the power of personal love into a personal relation. The exit from the child-parent natural relation is not the autonomy of the involved “adult” persons as they exercise individually the “will of God”. On the contrary, it is the relational exercise of the “will of God”. Without the specific relation the “will of God” becomes so personal that in the end results in impersonal legalism.

Of course, St Pauls teaching (Ephesians 4:13-16)is valid for parents-children first, and then for everyone else:

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."

To be an adult is the result of the nature, to be mature is the result of a relation.

[Elias Young]

Leandros:

You could be right...but it is by now water under the bridge. Fr. Theologos, having gone to the monastery at 19 years of age, is now in his late 20's and confirmed in his decision. His mother still had his father (and other family members)for comfort whereas St. John held the same features of the husband his mother had lost. St. John was, by his own admission, intemperate when it came to the monastic discipline he'd attempted to live prematurely. It is said that his health was damaged for the remainder of his life by his desire (or zeal) to eat grass instead of normal food.

Whereas we Americans have peculiar political and Protestant civil religious habits of mind which impose themselves into our clumsy attempts to live the Orthodox life as converts, you have centuries of tradition by which people become acclimated to the ethos of the Church. It seems to me though that regardless of our unique cultures and backgrounds there is the constant presence of multifaceted subliminal spiritual powers which intrude to try to ruin our earnest dedications to God, in Whom we live and move and have our being.

elias

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think that St Chrysostom's life is the Orthodox way of being a monk

Please forgive, but I think this statement is a bit presumptuous. While I agree that St. John was ONE Orthodox way, I have trouble with the concept that this represents the ONLY Orthodox way. I think a multitude of saints provide a multitude of witness that there is more than one "Orthodox way" to be a monk. The lives of the saints are replete with stories of daughters defying their fathers who wanted them to marry, a son who ran away from home, became a monastic and later took up residence in his own parents' home but his identity was not revealed until his death to them. These were not St. John's way, does that mean they are not equally "Orthodox"? Why then do we call them saints?

[Kosmas Damianides]

I think that Leandros means as a monk 'in the world' St John Chrysostom is one of the best examples that we have in the Orthodox Church.

St John in fact tried being a monk by living by himself in the harshest terrain but this ruined his health, this showed him (the hard way) that monastic solitude was not for him.

I suppose that there are many examples similar to that of St John Chrysostom in the Orthodox Church. Many bishops such as St Athanasius, St Maximus the Confessor, even St Lazarus were also persecuted for living an honest truthful life.

- Kosma

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Among Orthodox monastics the life of St John Chrysostom is not taken as a a model for the monastic life. Usually we are given the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the talks of Abba Dorotheos, the Evergetinos, etc. Among the Lives of monastic saints we read is that of St Anthony the Great.

Of course it's not that we have anything against St John Chrysostom! He is a great evangelical Father in the Orthodox sense of the word. But as far as monasticism goes he is not usually taken as a model as in many ways his experience of monasticism was not the norm. For one thing the community life is the usual model whereas St John attempted to live as a solitary. And then of course he had to leave this way of life due to illness- again not a model except if you were trying to console someone whose place was not in the monastery.

More than this however I feel that there is a danger of some of our comments being theoretical rather than practical. The monastic life is extremely real & practical & we read the Holy monastic Fathers as examples of this real life which has already been experienced. In other words what we read is not master of the lived experience of monasticism but rather what we read reflects what is being lived.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think that Leandros means as a monk 'in the world' St John Chrysostom is one of the best examples that we have in the Orthodox Church.

That was not my understanding of his meaning, and if so, it does not seem to fit contextually with the discussion of Fr. Theologos/"Young Nikos". Liandros did not say "BEST Orthodox way", he seems to imply "THE (only) Orthodox way" and that is what I have a problem with. The historical record as evidenced by the lives of the saints seems to indicate that there is more than one "Orthodox" way, and that is all that I am saying.

[Leandros]

Dear friends,

My reference to St Chrysostom’s life as “the Orthodox way of being a monk” was explained in the same sentence: “being truthful to God and at the same time being truthful to fellow man. When it comes to priorities, self is always the last priority and God and the ‘others’ is the premium priority. The ‘call’ for monastic life is not an end in itself. It is the absolute way of being the ‘servant’ of God and of everyone.”

What is the “Chrysostomian” way of being a monk? It is the relational way. The “Chrysostomian” model is the relational model. The Church, as the relation of persons with Christ and between themselves (in Christ) is present both in the world and in the monastery and actually the authentic ascetic life is experienced by expectant monks in the life in the world prior the actual entrance into a monastery. This is not an abstract ascetic realization; it is the real experience of being in relation of love with God and with the “other” members of the Church. (Fr Raphael Vereshack rightly warns not to philosophize on the subject – I personally thank you father for your guidance). The personal relation of Christian love, as it is experienced by Church members, is the ascetic way of being “servant” of the loving person. This is an existential experience that needs the ontological presence of the “served” person. We can become servants of an ideal, but the “servant” becomes also an abstract non-existed entity and in this case we are related only to ourselves.

The “Chrysostomian” model of being a monk needs the Church, the whole Church of the non-monastic community and of the monastic community. St Chrysostom’s mother asked from him: “But as long as I breathe, support me by your presence, and do not draw down upon you the wrath of God by bringing such evils upon me who have given you no offense". The absence of his presence would have been for his mother “such an unprovoked evil” that would “draw down upon him the wrath of God”. And she was absolutely right. There is no action that can be characterized as “good action” if it is taken out of a relation. The “will of God” is realized only when the reality of a living relation is taken in account. The “will of God” is not an abstract model of an individual way of being perfect, but a practical realization of being in a relation blessed by God. For that we need the specific other person with whom we relate in Christ. We can not ignore him/her because we have received a call from God. The “Chrysostomian” model of being a monk is the blessed way of putting God on waiting list: “message received, please God wait, because at this time I am serving someone else with whom I am personally related with”.

If St Chrysostom’s mother had asked him to stay in order to support her financially, or just because she wanted to arrange his future according to her “dreams” for him, or because she was not ready for the separation yet, I think St Chrysostom would have not follow her wish, because all these wishes do not originate from a person in relation, but from a person in need. St John’s mother was not in need of his presence, she was not talking about an emotional pain but about an ontological pain. His presence was part of her hypostasis. He could not be herself without his presence. The relation with him was not a valuable asset in her life. His absence would have not just made her poor. The relation with him was the way of being herself. Taken out of his presence she would vanish in being in no relation. Her hypostasis would have died. She already had such an experience from the lost of her husband.

St John’s mother, Anthusa, was left a widow at the age of twenty as his father died during the infancy of St John. She refused all offers of marriage, and devoted herself exclusively to the education of her only son and his older sister. She was probably from principle averse to a second marriage, according to a prevailing view of the Fathers. Anthusa gained general esteem by her exemplary life. The famous advocate of heathenism, Libanius, on hearing of her consistency and devotion, felt constrained to exclaim: "Bless me! what wonderful women there are among the Christians”.

Living a live of continuous service to her children she said to St John “"My son, my only comfort in the midst of the miseries of this earthly life is to see thee constantly, and to behold in thy features the faithful image of my beloved husband who is no more. This comfort commenced with your infancy before you could speak. I ask only one favor from you: do not make me a widow a second time; wait at least till I die; perhaps I shall soon leave this world.” She did not remind him that she had provided him his education in Antioch, Athens and Constantinople, or that she devoted her life in his raising. She just reminded him of their personal relation that was the cause of such joy for her in his presence and that by his absence a great pain would have ontologically realised by her as her death. This is not an abstract philosophical question of separation, but an ontological realization of separation in a specific relation. She asked him to “see him constantly” because this was the only comfort of her life.

St John realized that, he had a dream “to become a monk” and that dream was the “will of God”. But his personal relation with his mother and her grief was not a reality that he could ignore. He, then, decided to postpone his dream and the realization of the “will of God” because there was a relation that had priority over them.

As Christian’s we believe that there is a hierarchy of relations in our life. In these relations first we serve everyone else and then we wait from nobody to serve us. In these relations we are the servants of Love. This is the model of St Chrysostom’s way of being a monk.

In Christ, Christians are successful failures, instead of being failed successes.

Sometimes the failure of becoming a monk (or to perform according to “God’s will”) is our most successful realization of being members of the Church, by staying in loving relation with others in Christ.

The “Chrysostomian” model of being a monk is beyond the realization of a specific form of asceticism. It is the genuine asceticism of being in a specific blessed relation with others in Christ. Brother, Herman Blaydoe is right. There is not only ONE way of being a monk, because each specific personal relation with others and with God is a relation of distinct/different persons. Although there is not one model and each implementation of the way of being a monk is unique, particular, original and distinct from all others, at the same time it is a genuine recurrence of the one model which we call LOVE.

As I read, again, the interview of our brother monk Theologos, I wonder what the deepest meaning of his words is: “When I came back home from the convent Sunday after lunch everyone except my oldest sister was at the table, and I told everybody about my decision to go try it out. My mother was crying. But they did give me their blessing to go try it out. I made clear at the beginning that I was going to try it out. I’m not going for the sole purpose of joining the monastery. That I might come back and I might not. There was crying and a short discussion. And then, OK, if that’s what you want to do.”

Then, I read his Father’s interview: “We have pleaded, cried, and begged him to come home and re-think. We begged him to come home in October for his older sister Vera's wedding; he refused saying that there would be too much idle talk surrounding him. We told him that even Jesus lived among the people. Couldn’t he work with people and still be a part of the Church? Niko replied that Jesus had his calling and Niko had his own.”

Why, in these specific situations, did the parents cry for?

I remember last summer, in the wedding of the daughter of one member of our parish council, a group of three young and two older monks from a skete from Mount Athos, who came and joined with our priests and our Bishop in performing the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in our Church (some of them as priests and others as chanters). These monks were related in Christ with the family of the bride. Then they came at the bride’s reception where they stayed for half an hour before leaving for their skete. Their presence was a blessing and it helped everyone in the wedding to avoid the usual “idle talk”. Even after their departure, all the guests continued to act with the same self-restraint avoiding the “idle talk”, as they did in their presence. It was an unprecedented “ascetic” marriage and reception.

The model of “being a monk” is not a model of forming a monastic life style, or a model of absence from world, or a model of precision performance of the “will of God”. It is a model of practising LOVE. And this practise must take in account the “others” VERY SERIOUSLY.

Brother, monk, Theologos have said. in his interview: “My parents are wonderful people, they are the nicest, friendliest and most caring people that I have ever met. If you'd ever meet them you wouldn't believe that they would be capable of perpetrating this kind of public controversy and slander regarding Orthodox tradition. I never thought they would be.”

His father have said, in his interview: “In addition, Fr. Passias wrote that we must be happy that we can see our son. If he had been at the Holy Mountain (Athos in Greece), we would have never been able to see him. We answered him that those who have children will cross mountains to see their child.”

Our love for the “will of God”, that results for other people to suffer from their relation with us and for them to make tragic mistakes and to become desperate and to become “dead”, is an abstract love.

What St Crysostom did was a loyal practice of Christ’s advice: “give to caesar what is proper for the caesar, and give to God what is proper for the God”. God does not want to destroy human relations and to substitute human society. “God’s will” is to glorify human relations in His Glory.

The women and men that enter monastic life with relations with others that are being previously unilaterally arranged by themselves, are not doing “the will of God”. Those who enter into the monastic life in the “cold” of not having relations at all, or those who enter in the “hot” of having pending relations are those who are doing “the will of God”.

It is not that God asks for no relations, or for many relations. But, He certainly asks not to ignore others, His will is that we must serve others.

Our failure to have true relations, or the success to have true relations depends from the others just like it depends from us and it is a sign that we accept to become their “servants”. We accept that they are suitable to decide on our personal relation - their decision becomes our hot or cold way of being in relation with them. This is a behavior that is righteous before God.

But the unilaterally arrangement of our relations by us is a shame before God. Our decision to shape our relation, without taking in account the others, results in using the relation as our "servant" instead of us being "servants" of others in relation. This is just a warm way of being in impersonal relation with them. "Their feelings", "their actions", "their pleasures" are neither absolutely inexistent for us nor are they absolutely important for us; they just have a relative importance, which is defined by us.

(Revelation 3:15-16)

“He says, "I know what you do. I know that you are neither cold nor hot. And I wish that you were cold or hot.

So I will spit you out of my mouth, because you are only warm and not hot or cold.”

May God bless us, all.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Leandros originally posted:


From my experience, the way that young Nikos became monk is most inappropriate way and certainly most un-Orthodox.

He then goes on to contrast this with the story of St. John. Well I would suggest that many that we call saints could also be called "inappropriate" and "un-Orthodox" if St. John is the ONLY model permitted. I still think that Leandros is being a bit unfair to Fr. Theologos.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Elder Porphyrios ran away in his young teens, told his parents nothing (they assumed him kidnapped or dead), and later concealed his identity from them.

One of the fathers of the desert would not allow his mother into the monastery to see him, though she beat on the door day and night ('Is it better that you see me now, or see me in the Kindgom of heaven?').

A young monk on Athos felt the desire to return home to console his parents. At the port he had a vision of an angel: 'I am the one sent by God to console your parents in your absence. If you return, I shall depart. The choice is yours.'

It is a dangerous spiritual exercise to judge the actions of an individual on global standards, without knowing the story and details.

INCX, Matthew

[Leandros]

Dear friends,

Of course we do not judge young monk Theologos, or his parents.

Nevertheless, the historical presence of blessed "successful failures" in the life of Church, as the way of being Christian, is not a way of "isolation". It is a way of self-suppression; it is a way of self-failure for the sake of success of others.

In this context, the specific historical saint persons of the Church, who were "defiant of their parents", did not formulate a blessed way of "defiance" with their action. They are not presented as "models" of "Christian" disobedience but as models of Christian Love.

Elder Paisios used to say that, "a monk is living a blessed ascetic life for the sake of all other persons, which he loves with the same love that he has for his parents. With the same zeal that he prays for his parents, he also prays for everyone else, all day and all night. With the same zeal that he provides his wealth for the comfort of his parents, he also lives in lack of property. With the same zeal that he obeys to his parents, he also obeys to others - adopting their pleasures as his pleasure."

The “exit” from the world and the “entrance” to asceticism is an act of affirmation. The monk must say "yes" in his personal relation with each specific other person in the same way that he is saying yes to his parents.


(John 2:1-12)
"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.

And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days."


(Mark 7:6-16)
"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

[Herman Blaydoe]

In this context, the specific historical saint persons of the Church, who were "defiant of their parents", did not formulate a blessed way of "defiance" with their action. They are not presented as "models" of "Christian" disobedience but as models of Christian Love.

I still do not understand how Fr. Theologos' situation and circumstances are different than the ones Matthew has presented. Why are THEY models of Christian love, but Fr. Theologos is not? In my simple mind, I do not think a rational distinction has yet been made as to why one is appropriate and Orthodox while the other is inappropriate and un-Orthodox.

[Elias Young]

I suppose it is also inappropriate to mention the manner by which St. Mary of Egypt became a monk. But perhaps her circumstances were different. As Herman B. has said, God interacts with us as individuals, often having a unique path in mind and manner by which He draws souls to Himself.

elias

[Leandros]

I still do not understand how Fr. Theologos' situation and circumstances are different than the ones Matthew has presented. Why are THEY models of Christian love, but Fr. Theologos is not? In my simple mind, I do not think a rational distinction has yet been made as to why one is appropriate and Orthodox while the other is inappropriate and un-Orthodox.

“The man, that has experienced the odor of the fire of God, turns away from the fellowship of men, just like a bee keeps out of smoke.” St John of the Climax, eleventh speech, verse 9

Dear friends,

After more than 20 centuries, we can say that there is a disproportion on how we perceive “the way to be Christian”. From the one side, it is the attitude that a Christian is a person that learns about God and he struggles to put this knowledge into practice and from the other side, it is the attitude that Christian is a person who humbles himself. St Isaac of Syria says that the reward from God “is not given through the labor, but it is given through the humbleness”.

In his interview, young father Theologos explained his personal path that had guided him to the monastery. The opposition of his parents and the experience of their objections against his decision were part of this path. Following this path young Nikos made his decision to “try out” the monastic life because as he said in his interview:

“I know it may seem like I was in a rush, but I didn't want to meet God on Judgment Day and be asked ‘why didn't you heed My call?’ I had to try it out for the sake of my peace of mind and obedience to God’s holy will.”

In my earlier post I have said that, “From my experience, the way that young Nikos became monk is most inappropriate way and certainly most un-Orthodox”. I have tried to describe the “inappropriate” and “un-Orthodox” way by pointing several such marks of “his way” as he had presented it in his interview. I did not isolate the specific parents-child relation as THE single inappropriate and un-Orthodox way, but I have tried to make clear that are many false turns in the specific “way” of Nikos:

Nikos initiated his path starting with wrong dilemmas: “should I became a)an English Major,b) a physical therapist c)a priest or d)a monk ?”
Then, he asked his priest about his decision: “I told him I was thinking about becoming a monk or priest, I wanted to serve the church in some manner” and he received the answer: “Son I don’t have that kind of spiritual discernment to say whether or not this for you.”
Then, he asked another priest for the same issue: “I told him I was thinking about becoming a monk or priest, I wanted to serve the church in some manner. I told him that I felt a strong draw to that, that that was how I wanted to lead my life” and he was advised "the only way you'll know is to go to Arizona and try it out."
Then, he asked for his parents blessing, “There was crying and a short discussion. And then, OK, if that’s what you want to do.”
Then, he made up his mind to join the monastery as a novice, because “It's the proper age to make the decision, in fact, not too young and not too old.”
While being a novice, he was visited by his parents and he said that “I didn't even think about leaving. It was suggested several times by my parents, and by the devil in my thoughts, but I knew this was the place.”
While “walking” this path, he said in his interview that: “Let me make clear that I had a great childhood as far as family relations are concerned. My parents encouraged love among the siblings, and we all loved each other deeply and showed concern for each other. We were a really tight-knit family… I noticed I had something special in my family and I valued that. But once I started getting involved in the church, growing spiritually, and got to know other families in our parish, I noticed something special in their families too, the fact that it was Christ-centered and not just family-centered. I studied philosophy more and learned more about secular humanism and realized that was the prevailing ethical system in America, and that's where my family is. We attended church and learned Christianity is good, our religion, but we never fasted, we didn't have a deep Orthodox spiritual life. The most we did was to go to Sunday School, that was something special to do that. We did have an icon corner at home.
The young monk, as he reached the end of his path, realized that: “As for seeing things in black and white, as Christians we believe that there is a God and a devil, a heaven and a hell. Anything we do ultimately leads to here or there, and as a Christian we need to see all of our actions as that, to ask, to whom am I showing my allegiance?”
And then, he stopped talking with his parents because, as he said in his interview: ”Seven months of peaceful communication later, I ask if those things are still circulating on the Internet, can you please take them off, because even if they are not newly posted, they are in effect continually publishing-- each time someone clicks them on. They said no, we can’t take them off, we're not convinced that you're not still in a cult. So I broke off relations with them again because of what Christ says in Matthew 18. It's just embittering for me to still be in touch with them, when they continue in a very public way to do what they do and thus really to express hate for what I stand for and for my spiritual father.”
Also, young monk Theologos made the following statements about his parents: “Vain criticism and idle talk, it means nothing-- we are told to love one another. If I didn’t still love them, how could I possibly call myself a Christian, much less a monk!... But one thing I'm sure is that they need to change, for the sake of their souls.”
Finally he concludes as a monk of the Orthodox Church that: “What my parents in this criticism of the system of the spiritual father are saying is, in effect, that to make spiritual decisions you need a "trained conscience" based in that fragmented, godless moral system of modern life. But the only "trained conscience" from an Orthodox perspective is a conscience trained by the Fathers and Canons of the Church. The conscience of the Church is expressed through those clergy and lay people who have reached illumination and deification.”
ALL these false turns, together, are the “most inappropriate way and certainly most un-Orthodox” and they would have been the same inappropriate and un-Orthodox even if the young monk’s parents had no objections at all.

Let me explain what the meaning of “most inappropriate way and certainly most un-Orthodox” is:

From the excerpts above, it is clear that monk Theologos is afraid of God because he thinks that God has a plan for him and he needs to follow it and If he fails to perform according to God’s pleasure then he is condemn, “but he does not want to meet God on Judgment Day and be asked ‘why didn't you heed My call?”. He also thinks that, in his obligation to serve God, the most profound way is to “become a priest or a monk”. He arrived to this conclusion because “he had studied philosophy” and by that he realized that his family was following “secular humanism” and it was “family-centered” instead of being “Christ-centered”. But he also thought “that there is a God and a devil, a heaven and a hell. Anything we do ultimately leads to here or there, and as a Christian we need to see all of our actions as that, to ask, to whom am I showing my allegiance?” and that “the only ‘trained conscience’ from an Orthodox perspective is a conscience trained by the Fathers and Canons of the Church” and so, he felt that he should “exit” from his family relationship that was a part of “an impossible contradiction with the very basis of our morals, a contradiction that makes unclear any basis for moral decisions in society at large” and that he should “enter” the “only ‘trained conscience’ from an Orthodox perspective”. Based on his belief that, “to make spiritual decisions you need the conscience of the Church that is expressed through those clergy and lay people who have reached illumination and deification”, he overcame the suggestions made “by his parents, and by the devil in his thoughts” to leave the monastery. He was assured that it was the right time to make his decision because “it's the proper age to make the decision, in fact, not too young and not too old”.

Finally he made the most astounding un-Orthodox statement about his relation with his parents: “Vain criticism and idle talk, it means nothing-- we are told to love one another. If I didn’t still love them, how could I possibly call myself a Christian, much less a monk! From the world's standpoint, tomorrow we may be gone, and then what comes of such controversy? I don't blame them at all. But one thing I'm sure is that they need to change, for the sake of their souls.” He is actually saying that he has a CHRISTIAN DUTY to love his parents. His words are “If I didn’t still love them” and the word “still” means that they are now unworthy of his love after their improper behaviour, but “still” he has a duty to love them, as a Christian and as a monk”. The loving relation is broken, but “love still remains” as a mere order to be obeyed. The loved persons are absent but the “Christian love is still” there, because “If he didn’t still love them, how could he possibly call himself a Christian, much less a monk!” So, in his heart “his love” is an attribute of being a Christian, it is his holy duty, it is the pleasure of God. Young monk Theologos believes that "we are told to love one another". For monk Theologos, "to love his parents" is one of the many orders of God.

He thinks that “From the world's standpoint, tomorrow we may be gone, and then what comes of such controversy?” So, he looks beyond today into tomorrow and he concludes: “But one thing I'm sure is that they need to change, for the sake of their souls”.

In this context, young monk Theologos, finds also his duty “to broke off relations with them because of what Christ says in Matthew 18”. Again, his relation with his parents is prescribed by the Gospel: (Matthew 18:15-17) "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” BUT, monk Theologos fails to read in the same chapter: (Matthew 18:21-22) “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times”.

Fr Theologos is consistent with his abstract Christian ideal, he “forgives” his parents but at the same time he also treats them “as they would a pagan or a tax collector”. He loves them from a safe distance. His “love” and his “forgiveness” are towards non-persons. They are mental abstract affirmations to certain laws, while never going through the heart. Young monk Theologos is exclusively defined, as a person, in his way of being related with God - in his obedience to His will. He is defined as a person by the Gospel’s laws and the canons of the Church, because he thinks they are the safest path into the future. Everything else and everybody else are considered by him irrelevant. He becomes in his blind faith a fundamentalist of Christian faith. He becomes a consumer of Christianity. He “buys” the best “ideology” of salvation and he is eager to follow even the bitterest Christian doctrines, but at the same time the others, even his parents, are meaningless as long as they endanger his salvation and they act against “God’s will”.

Dear Herman Blaydoe, at this point, let me answer to your question: The Christian way of being a monk and the Christian Love are not mandatory duties. They are specific personal relations with God and specific personal relations with other persons. But for young monk Theologos both the way of being a monk and his love for his parents are realized as duties, in Christ. His departure from his home and the defiance of his parents are not the results of Love from his heart, but the removal of obstacles that prevented him from his salvation. How do we know this? Because, he told us so in his interview: “We're never told to hate our parents or any of our relatives. But when people act like my parents do, they become an obstacle to our salvation”

In all the examples, that have been presented by Dr. M.C. Steenberg (and in those that the Church presents), of monks that were persisting in being separated from their parents, the main theme was their love and their concern for the salvation of their parents. NOBODY has said that their parents “became an obstacle to their salvation”. As Dr. M.C. Steenberg have presented already, some of them have said: “Is it better that you see me now, or see me in the Kindgom of heaven?”, others “felt the desire to return home to console his parents”, others “later concealed his identity from them (while serving them)”. All these behaviours are presented as models of Love.

BUT NONE Orthodox monk has ever considered that their parents “become an obstacle to their salvation”, because it is a genuine Christian experience that: “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”(Romans 8:38-39).

Unfortunately, young monk Theologos has acknowledged in his interview that he lacks such an Orthodox experience of the "peace of Love". He said in his interview: "I had to try it out for the sake of my peace of mind and obedience to God’s holy will”. For monk Theologos, 'the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord' is substituted by the peace of mind and by the obedience. It is an impersonal realization of love.

I do not accuse, or blame our young brother Theologos, because he is young in faith and he is expected to make mistakes. Also he was wise enough to ask for guidance from the proper Church ministers, because in his youth he was feeling his weakness.

God knows that, in his heart, young monk Theologos means well and he will provide His Grace to supplement his insufficiency. But, he must follow the advise of St Paul: "In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."(Hebrews 5:12-14).

But, I am VERY DISAPPOINTED from the clergymen, because they close their eyes to St Paul’s command: “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure” (1 Timothy 5:22). St Paul have warned St Timothy, and this warning is valid for all clergymen, not to ordain priests with thoughtlessness and with hastiness. The same advice is valid for ordaining monks and nuns.

May God bless us, all.

[Antonios]

Personally, I think this conversation is beginning to sound a bit Pharisaical... Who are we to try to discern about whether this person's path to God was unorthodox and incorrect? Does one written statement constitute knowledge of a person's heart? Do we have so much discernment as to clearly see how 'misguided' this person was and against the Providence of God? I think we should be a bit more cautious in how we criticize others who make valiant attempts and sacrifices to find God in thier lives, whether or not it is the way we think most fit.

in love,
Antonios

[Leandros]

Dear forum members,

Let me submit a text by Greek Orthodox theologian Dionisios Papachristodoulou, which was originally published in Greek:

I think that the main problem in Orthodox Christianity today is our failure to understand the difference between the nature and the energy of God.

The main problem is the gnoseology. There is the impression, due to lack of orthodox experience that it is possible for someone to know about God, either through philosophy, or through revelation. It is believed that, the faithful must first accept the information of philosophizing thought and of the Holy Scripture through the faith and only then, if he has the mental capability, he may try to comprehend these by logic. The “knowledge” is defined as the domination of mentality of the subject over the objective realities. But, St Mark the hermit underlines that: “the man who does not know the truth, he is neither capable to have true faith”. For, the knowledge, in its natural order, precedes faith”. The experiential knowledge comes first and then follows faith, which “can move mountains”.

For many people, the direct revelation that is realized by the intellect is valued as superior of the above, seemingly material, experiential revelations. In this context, the “revealment” is happening in order to become comprehended by the human mind.

So, in this way, a platonic and neoplatonic form is introduced under a Christian cloak, by equalizing the natural world with the kingdom of evil, that fights the kingdom of goodness, which is beyond visible, in the region of the souls and of the spirit. Therefore, God exists because there is a man with soul and self-consciousness. This gnoseology is based to psychological self- consciousness of man. The roman-catholic saint Augustine says: “I doubt, therefore I exist”, anticipated Descartes who taught the same: “I think, therefore I am”.

This subjectivity is expressed as “intellectus ratio”. The human subject, which is identified with the soul, has the capability of presentment, judgment and will (memoria, intellectus, voluntas). God becomes just the means provided for the subjective and self-ive man in servicing his need to reach his private blessedness. In this context, God as a Being is ontologically separated from the world and from the “matter”, while the knowledge of God is nothing else but the subjective self-consciousness of the “idea” of God within the human soul.

This knowledge is possible because of the so called natural revelation combined with the supernatural revelation. The natural revelation is called “Analogy of being” (analogia entis) and it is the possibility to draw conclusions from the known objects and relationships of the natural order concerning God. The supernatural revelation is called the “Analogy of faith” (analogia fidei) which is the principal that correspondence between the created order and God is only established on the basis of the self-revelation of God.

The “Analogy of beings”, the natural revelation, is based on the alleged resemblance between the God and the Creation. It is assumed that the created reality is a copycat of the uncreated “ideas” of God. Orthodox Church declares the condemnation of all those that believe in the existence of such uncreated archetypes/prototypes during the service of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

The second analogy is based on the alleged resemblance between the God and the Scripture, according to the allegation that God reveals Himself and His Works in the Scripture. In principle this allegation is true, but only for those who study the Scriptures by already having received the same experience of glorification like the prophets and the apostles of the Old and of the New Testament.

When the study of the Scripture is used in the right way, it guides each person to purification, to illumination and, when it is the pleasure of the Lord, to deification. But there is nothing in the Scripture that has ontological resemblance with the Uncreated. This is due to the fact that “to talk about God is impossible, but it is even more impossible to understand God” and “there is no resemblance between created and Uncreated” (St Gregory the Theologian).

The natural consequence of the acceptation of the existence of the “analogy being” and of the “analogy of faith” is the idolatry/paganism. “With the term ‘Religion’ we mean any identification of the uncreated with the creation and even every identification of presentment of the uncreated with notions and words of human intellect, which is the foundation of the worship of idols. These notions and words could be nothing more but notions and words or presentations with statues and images taken from within and out of the inspired text. The identification of the notions and of the words of the Scripture about God with the uncreated ontology is also idolatry/paganism and it is the foundation from every heresy until these days.

In the therapeutic tradition of the Old and of the New Testament, appropriate notions and words are used as means of therapy during purification and illumination of the heart and they are removed during glorification, when the indescribable, unapprehensible and uncreated Glory of God, which fills everything, is revealed in the body of Christ. After the glorification, the notions and the words of the prayer of the heart return. From his glorification, the glorified person discovers that “there is no resemblance between created and Uncreated and that to talk about God is impossible, but it is even more impossible to understand God”. The Faith, according to the Scripture, is the collaboration with the Holy Spirit, Who initiates the therapy of the illness of selfish love in the heart, and He transforms it to the love that “does not seek its own”. This therapy is climaxed with the glorification (deification) ” (+Fr John Romanidis)

The main problem of man is pride, the illusion that he can live by himself, alone and self-sufficient. Then, he misappropriates the divine “I AM” and he recognizes the beginning of “existence” in him. Then, the road for the knowledge of the alleged analogy is open to be conquered. The “person” is self-sentenced to self-tank inside himself. All other beings are obliged to serve this autonomous and self-sufficient “person”, a “person” that is struggling to self-ensure his autonomy and his self-sufficiency.

The “repentance” is the cure for this abuse. The created human “person” recognizes his limits. He realistically accepts his non-autonomy and his non-self-sufficiency.

While the “analogy of being” and the “analogy of faith” formulate a pyramid standing at its base with the God being on the top, the elder Sofronios has formulated the original “reverse pyramid”. Elder Sofronios’ analogy explains in the most profound way the mystery of Love of Christ and how this love acts or participates in a world that “rests in evil”.

In his “reverse pyramid” analogy, elder Sofronios presents the world as a pyramid. The hierarchy people of upper and lower class and every other division of inequality among men are the results of the fall of Adam and Eve. Those who are on the top of the pyramid are dominating and are prevailing over those who are lower closer to the base of the pyramid, while the Justice, as a request “in the image of God”, does not exist.

Christ is ontologically “reversing” this pyramid of being, in order to cure the man and in order to solve the deadlock of injustice by raising all those who are under ontological depressed/humiliated hierarchy, by putting the top of the pyramid ontological down and its base on ontological top. At the reverse pyramid, Christ, Himself, is the ontological top, as the Head of the Body of the “new Creation”. So in the “bottom” of the “reverse pyramid” (which is actually on the ontological “top” by an incomprehensibly way), the humble and the salvific spirit of the Crucified Christ is filling everything.

So, in the “reverse pyramid” of elder Sofronios, a Christian is approaching God but going “down” to the base with the others and not by going “up” leaving the others at a lower level.

[Owen Jones]

This quote appears to me to be needlessly obscurantist. It is true that Latin theology depends heavily on the anologia entis. And that there has been a tendency in Latin theology to objectify theological concepts, and to make an unnecessary distinction between systematic theology and what they call "affective" or "ascetical" or "mystical" theology, whereas this split does not occur in our tradition. There are other such examples, such as the distinction between the supernatural and natural, and two types of revelation that reflect these two respectively -- and it is true, as the above quotes tries to point out -- that we look at things quite differently. We do not say that there are two types of revelation and two types of theology, natural theology and supernatural theology. It's a topic that is worth exploring, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So to call the analogia entis heresy or paganism is a bit of a stretch. The desert fathers say very clearly that we know God in and through the things that He made. That's all the analogia entis means. No Thomist in his right mind would say that that means that we are confusing the created and the Uncreated. Any good medieval Catholic knows that you cannot have a direct knowledge of God, and that God is Beyond all things.

According to my understanding, the Orthodox argument is that there is a higher level of noesis than the analogia entis, which goes by different names, but is grounded in our firm understanding of Pentacost, wherein the senses are restored to their proper, natural state, and are set on fire, so to speak. The Latin Church tends to relegate such "mystical" experience to a kind of special class of persons called mystics, and in Latin theology, the analogia entis is as far as you can get. I'm oversimplyfying of course, but as I said, the quote I think is overly obscurantist.

Look, the real problem with Orthodoxy today is simple laxity. We've overly institutionalized and domesticated the Church, and the Church tends to be more an expression of ethnic and national identity. Certain philosophical problems that pervade modernity are a major stumbling block everywhere, it is only natural that ideologies such as scientism and psychologism and historicsm infect thinking in the Church, but none of this has anything to do with classical theology. Plato would have called all of this sophistry, alchemy, magic. I've tried to point out in other posts, without any success really, that to consign classical philosophy to "paganism" and nothing more is a grave error. One might as well consign geometry and mathematics to paganism. But some people like to write books and build a reputation on some fixation, without really illuminating much.

I find much that is interesting and helpful in Romanides, but he also was a very quirky thinker who seemed to have a politica/social agenda of his own lurking behind the scenes.

Here's the problem with the quote that disturbs me. It sounds like the beginning of Orthodox theology is a reaction to the West. You don't explicate Orthodox theology as a reaction to something. That's not the right spirit. Orthodoxy has its own building blocks.

We do need to be on guard against certain unphilosophical intellectual abstractions, and it would help if our clergy were better trained to identify them, and help our people to overcome them. But that is a gigantic problem. One of my priests used to say that his people are all Protestants, and he was absolutely right. they worship like Greek Orthodox, but think like Protestants, and don't even know it. But the real answer is not to give sermons today like St. Gregory the theologian did, because no one would understand a word of it, but rather to bring people back into the fold as if we were all catechumens. It begins and ends with the heart, with proper intellectual discernment as part of the path in between. Our problem is that our heart has been hardened so that God cannot even get through, and so we use intellectualisms or emotionalisms as a substitute. I think it is almost a universal experience of parish life that there is something missing. But let's not use straw men with which to build our theological vision.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

I find the whole discussion regarding Fr Theologos deeply disturbing. Judgement of another is judgement of another, however one chooses to describe it. And there is still the matter that the notions raised above as 'un-orthodox' simply are not, and many have a long tradition and history. The Christian way, and particularly the monastic way, is diverse and individual.

It seems best to quiet this discussion altogether.

INXC, Matthew

[Leandros]

Dear friends,

I knew in advance that my posts would have disturbed some forum members.

I repeat that I am not a teacher of Christian faith; I do not present anything more than myself.

Young Fr Theologos had chosen to expose himself in “several interviews” that were published as a single composite interview in the specific public web site, where he publicly criticized his parents and the whole "American society", in order to "respond to unfair criticisms of traditional monasticism". It is his privilege and his duty to do so.

Well, he did not convince me, in spite of my good will and my absolute faith in Orthodox monasticism.

I think that the freedom of expression is the "backbone" of relations.

"Judgement" has another meaning for me. "Judgement" is to believe for myself to be in a "better" personal relation with God than the other person, which I honestly don't.

I have honestly tried to follow Church's order that exhort us "...that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3).

Nevertheless, I respect Dr. Steenberg's advise and I "quiet", although I understand that part of being in relation is to "deeply disturb" by being honest and in love with the disturbed person.

Leandros

[Leandros]

This quote appears to me to be needlessly obscurantist. It is true that Latin theology depends heavily on the anologia entis. And that there has been a tendency in Latin theology to objectify theological concepts, and to make an unnecessary distinction between systematic theology and what they call "affective" or "ascetical" or "mystical" theology, whereas this split does not occur in our tradition. There are other such examples, such as the distinction between the supernatural and natural, and two types of revelation that reflect these two respectively -- and it is true, as the above quotes tries to point out -- that we look at things quite differently. We do not say that there are two types of revelation and two types of theology, natural theology and supernatural theology. It's a topic that is worth exploring, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Dear Owen Jones,

I have started a new thread in order to discuss your answer.

[C. Christoph]

Greetings, Matthew

The Freemasons (that is, Freemasons Proper) are known to oppose Christianity since their appearance. Also, Orthodox are forbidden under pain of excommunication to become Freemasons.

(A reference note: Meletios Metaxakis, Athenagoras, and Bartholomaios of Constantinople were/are Freemasons> Interesting.)

However, those who were raised on Schmemann, Meyendorff, and other academicians are usually not aware of the more subtle problems in the Church, nor do they know about the Church as organism as opposed to Church organism.

Also, I could never understand why so many in the Orthodox churches in America are hostile to monasticism?
I noticed you said that the current Patriarch is a Freemason!!!
Have you got any proof of this accusation?
I am surprised nobody contested this here -although I have not read all the answers...