Sin that seems inescapable [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

acedaroflebanon

17-08-2006, 05:24 PM

Father David Moser

17-08-2006, 06:20 PM

as soon as the temptation is noticeable, get up, walk away, turn off the computer if necessary, go and pray, read the Gospel, mow the law, go to the gym and work out, exhaust yourself physically (that is what he desert fathers always taught the young novices to do) and pray.

Nothing magic - just hard work.

Fr David Moser

acedaroflebanon

17-08-2006, 06:40 PM

Thanks, Father. This is kind of long, so bear with me...

Yeah...really hard work. That's the thing, you see, most of the time I can do all those things. I didn't mean to say that I fall every time the temptation arises, because, I have been, as I said, doing a lot of study about the benefits of asceticism, and I have been attempting to implement these things into my daily routine. I've been waking up earlier, praying before my icons every morning and evening according to the "Little Red Pocket Prayer Book for Orthodox Christians." It has the Trisagion and Proscribed Morning, Noon, and Evening Prayers, and a whole lot of other stuff. I've been fasting the srictest possible fast each WED. and FRI. (the only thing I eat those days is raw food, and only one, maybe two small meals also. only drinking water too.) I attempted the Dormition Fast recently, though for a novice as myself, two weeks is pretty difficult. Though I did manage not to drink any milk.
Also, I've been reading about the Hesychasts and I have a book on St. Gregory Palamas, and I've been trying to be constantly praying the Jesus Paryar Mentally (but that is REALLY hard to do, no wonder they have to practice it so much.)

Anyway, that was a bit distracted...I am at times sucessful, usually more than not sucessful, but, it seems that when it happens that I fail, it all occurs at once over a few days, and then it's right back to my vigilant self for a while. Maybe I am not vigilant enough. What advice is there on keeping one's self constantly vigilant? I remember last week, all week long I was praying the Jesus Prayer and I managed almost not to even look at a woman lustfully, or, when I noticed that I would, I immediately re-directed my thoughts. I felt so sucessful, and now this week it has no been so good.

I know that hard work is not magic, though I am glad you pointed it out because sometimes I wish there was a magic answer. I guess I am not sure at what point somethign actually becomes sin. What about the period when in my head I resist the thought, but the thought is there no matter if I resist it or not? Like, images that I cannot get out of my mind, even if those images don't cause me to act because I immediately resist thinking about it. Does it eventually go away?

Sorry for the lengh,
nick

acedaroflebanon

17-08-2006, 06:49 PM

acedaroflebanon

17-08-2006, 06:53 PM

Sorry, one more thing...

I have this feeling in my head like that I want to repeptn and weep over my sins. I really want to pray and weep. I've been asking for God to send me tears of repentance each time the temptings emerge, but, I feel like God says to me "You know Nick, If you really were sorry, you would stop it." I don't think that is God's voice, but, it certainly doesn't help anything. I do feel that way, like that I don't stop because I don't want to...but I really realy do want to.

alexei

17-08-2006, 06:56 PM

Nick,

Greetings in Christ!

Fr. Moser's advice is good. I would simply add that your ascetic struggle (which is much better than mine, frankly) will arouse the devil. He can not stand the fact that you are attempting to move towards God, so he will tempt you even more. Of course, I know how you feel--once you give in, why stop there? And I assume that is why it takes a few days for you to become vigilant again.

I applaud your humility in this matter...not everyone would admit to this. So it is a good first step. I think the thing we all have to remember when we go to confession is that we are not so holy--why, then, be embarassed to admit our sins? This is easier said than done, of course.

We should pray for each other,
Alexei

acedaroflebanon

17-08-2006, 07:27 PM

Well, I am not sure why I have two identical posts up there. Oh well.

Thanks Alexsei, and I will surely pray for you, if you are dealing with the same problems, then I know that we could use all the prayer we can get. I know that I appreciate prayers said on my behalf.
I think that sin is embarassing precisely because we are not so holy...I am ashamed that I am not more the image-bearer of God that wea re all supposed to be. I mean, I am very comfortable with our priest, and I feel that i could tell him anything without being embarassed, because he is one of the most humbel people I have ever met.

Do you have any advice on the ascetic struggle...It's funny to me that you think mine is good, because I think mine is terrible. I read about the Saints and monks and that is what I desire to achieve, and in the meantime I feel like I really am not even trying to do anything. One day, I hope.

nick

Father David Moser

17-08-2006, 08:03 PM

Pet Peeve alert!

Proscribed Morning, Noon, and Evening Prayers,

That should probably read "prescribed" which as wel all know means recommended. "Proscribed", of course, means prohibited. The prayers in the prayer book are generally *prescribed* prayers since we don't usually put out prayer books and then print the prayers you *should not* use.

Fr David Moser

Ken McRae

17-08-2006, 08:09 PM

There is a certain kind of spirit that will not depart without fasting; and when our prayers seem powerless over it, it is often because we have not united them with fasting. This is not to say, though, that fasting will cause carnal temptations to disappear, but only that it'll help strenghten you against them.

The Lord sometimes permits carnal temptations to buffet us all our lives, so as to prove and humble us, and exercise us unto mental sobriety, or wakefulness and unceasing prayer. There are stories of holy fathers who suffered heroically all their life from carnal temptations! For this reason, some would never allow women to approach them in the flesh, or in person, or face-to-face!

In short, develope a combative mindset and strategy. A good fighter carefully studies his opponent's moves, and will learn to effectively block and counter his attacks! In regard to fasting, though, start by simplifying your eating habits. Eventually cut back from three to two meals per day. Eat smaller portions and absolutely eliminate useless junkets. Reduce your intake of testosterone producing foods, too, like meat especially!

Father David Moser

17-08-2006, 08:13 PM

I felt so sucessful, and now this week it has no been so good.

Well that's usually when we have the most trouble with these habitual sins - as soon as pride gets a little foothold and we (even unwittingly) relax our vigilance and then the sin comes up and smacks us upside the head from behind.

In addition to the Jesus prayer, it is always helpful to call out to the Mother of God for help with any of the passionate temptations.

This whole question is largely pastoral and so should be taken up with your priest/spiritual father who can guide you more effectively than anyone on the internet (especially me).

It is true, btw, that we fall frequently - its because we are still so used to sinning but not so used to living a righteous life. But when you fall intosin, don't despair, but get up immediately, repent before God, asking forgiveness and renew your struggle.

Having said all this about the necessity of getting spiritual guidance from your priest, let me call to your attention a small book called "Prayers for purity" which is a small rule of prayer targeted specifically towards temptations of a lustful/sexual nature. I think that it is printed by Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville NY and I think it can also be obtained through the St John of Kronstadt Press http://www.sjkp.org/ It is probably available other places, but this what I know.

Fr David Moser

Father David Moser

17-08-2006, 08:13 PM

Does it eventually go away?

yes, when you die.

Fr David Moser

acedaroflebanon

17-08-2006, 08:21 PM

There are stories of holy fathers who suffered heroically all their life from carnal temptations! For this reason, some would never allow women to approach them in the flesh, or in person, or face-to-face!

What about being married? I know that we are encouraged as Orthodox to abstain more and especially when we are fasting to fast from sexual relatins as well. But, how are we to differentiate between sexual passion in marriage and sexual passion like lust and mental adultery and masturbation which is sinful. It seems like that regardless if the passion is directed towards my wife, it is still the same sexual passion? Right, is all passion essentially the same? If so, then arousal of the passoins, even for married, spousal intercourse, is still arousal of the passions, which can lead to wrongful arousal. Right? Wrong?

I know that sex within the rules of marriage is not sinful, but I have noticed that there are times when my lust arises especially the day after sexual relations with my wife, and it seems like it's because my pasion had already been aroused.

nick

Ken McRae

17-08-2006, 09:21 PM

The Scriptures teach that two become one, in marriage, so in essence, we double our temptations in marriage. Now this is very treacherous for the person not called of God to marry! Now he must fight twice as hard as before to sanctify his body, but without the blessing of God. That spells disaster, in my eyes! Thus, there is the option for seperation or divorce!

Marriage is a gift from God. The person called to married life will not receive a blessing to pursue a monastic path. He that is called to be a monk will not be blessed to marry. However, marriage is not some sort of guaranteed escape from carnal temptations. The presence of strong carnal temptations is not a sign that one is called to marry. Many are called to be monks, but because they suffer from fierce carnal temptations, they instead succumbed to marriage. This is very wrong, I fear!

In marriage, we gain another body and thus acquire the "mother" load of carnal passions. We must now learn to control not just the passions of one body, but of two! This can make for a long and rocky road to Paradise, especially if your wife does not wish to co-operate, or work together, in mortifying unruly passions, to keep your bed holy and undefiled. It will prove a heavy cross for the man who wants to cultivate abstinence with age. In this sense, Viagra, imo, is a hellish device!

Marriage is not a license to wrecklessly indulge in carnal passions. The marriage bed is sanctified, only for those called and blessed of God for it. But that sanctity can be easily lost or compromised, if not jealously safe-guarded. The life of the bedroom, like all aspects of life, must be governed by rules! That's a hard fact, of life, whether we like it or not!

Rule of Prayer Against Evil Thoughts (http://www.monasterypress.com/presstitles.html) - Another Monastery Press exclusive. A great consolation in one's personal spiritual struggles. Very popular, entering into its third printing! $2.00 USD

St. Ignatius Brianchaninov on the Rule of Attention to Oneself (http://www.roca.org/OA/28/28d.htm)

Antonios

18-08-2006, 01:10 AM

In addition to the Jesus prayer, it is always helpful to call out to the Mother of God for help with any of the passionate temptations.

Just wanted to underscore this particular suggestion by Father David, as the Theotokos is of notorious assistance in our fight with the passions of the flesh. Pray to her, and it is guaranteed she will help you through this, whether you notice it or not.

There is a book which I find particularly difficult to read but is of profound wisdom and is used extensively on Mount Athos, especially for novices. It is called The Unseen Warfare, edited by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. It would be best, as always, to consult your spiritual father and/or parish priest when tackling such an endeavor.

Don't despair! With faith, hope and love you will conquer this passion!

Keep fighting the good fight!

Father David Moser

18-08-2006, 02:45 AM

Marriage is a gift from God. The person called to married life will not receive a blessing to pursue a monastic path.

He that is called to be a monk will not be blessed to marry. However, marriage is not some sort of guaranteed escape from carnal temptations. The presence of strong carnal temptations is not a sign that one is called to marry. Many are called to be monks, but because they suffer from fierce carnal temptations, they instead succumbed to marriage. This is very wrong, I fear!

Not necessarily quite so "clean". For example a man (or woman) who is married, after being widowed, (or even divorced) can enter monastic life. Also a husband and wife, if both agree and willingly choose to enter monastic life can indeed do so (even without divorce) - but they enter monastic life in different monasteries and generally do not communicate with one another, devoting all their energies and attentions to their separate monastic community.

And a person who is a monastic but who has not yet taken the (small) schema can be released from monastic life and marry. I guess you could argue that that person wasn't called to monastic life - but there are many many riassaphore monks who have been in monastic life for years. I'm not sure how you can make that distinction.

In marriage, we gain another body and thus acquire the "mother" load of carnal passions. ...

Man oh man, you have a really really "dark" view of marriage. Its not anywhere as bad as you seem to indicate (so I say after nearly 30 years)

Fr David Moser

acedaroflebanon

18-08-2006, 03:03 PM

I have to agree with Fr. Moser here, as, I have often considered that if I become a widower, I would enter monastic life. But of course the monastic life is absolutely not something that I wish to give up my marriage and children for, as I know that these are what God has blessed me with at this period of my life. Besides that, aren't we all called to a certain amount of a type of monastic life through acestic struggles and prayer?

I guess I should reatate my above question in a less cluttered way:
(Before I say all of this, I should point out that my wife and I come out of a somewhat difficult background -- I was Roman Catholic, so, sex for me was supposed to be always bad all the time...She was Charismatic/Pentecostal, so all sex was good and holy and anything goes, so-to-speak, as long as it is sex between married people. So we are working very hard to understand the right middle ground about sex that has got to exist somewhere in Orthodoxy, because, it seems that ALL of the right middle ground about everything exists in Orthodoxy.)

So here are the big questions:

Is it possible that the passions and sexual desire which are aroused in a sinless way through sanctified marital sex could somehow carry over and cause the arousal of unholy desire and extra-marital mental lust? Is all sexual passion, whether in marriage or out of it, equally wrong? Even in marriage, is sex something that should never be pursued for the sake of physical pleasure, but instead only for practical reasons..i.e. children? Furthermore, what is sanctified marital sex...? (I don't mean "details", just a concept of what sex is like properly in marriage.)

But I am not sure I understand Theophilus' reasoning, as I was under the impression that the Orthodox teach that the primary function of marriage is to aid in the salvation of our spouse.

Trudy

18-08-2006, 04:11 PM

Like, images that I cannot get out of my mind... Does it eventually go away?

Yes, those images will lessen over time and through the battle. (At least that has been true for me, but I'm a woman.)

In Christ, Athanasia

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-08-2006, 04:42 PM

Nick asked

Is it possible that the passions and sexual desire which are aroused in a sinless way through sanctified marital sex could somehow carry over and cause the arousal of unholy desire and extra-marital mental lust? Is all sexual passion, whether in marriage or out of it, equally wrong? Even in marriage, is sex something that should never be pursued for the sake of physical pleasure, but instead only for practical reasons..i.e. children? Furthermore, what is sanctified marital sex...? (I don't mean "details", just a concept of what sex is like properly in marriage.)

First off we need to be clear that passions and sexual desire cannot be aroused in a sinless way. The sexual and physical expression of intercourse results from the Fall- the Holy Fathers are clear about this. Prior to the Fall personal communion between Adam & Eve was achieved dispassionately and without lust. It was also- again from the winess of the Holy Frs- not achieved through physical intercourse of the sort we know now.

From here I think it's best to jump to the questions above, "Is all sexual passion, whether in marriage or out of it, equally wrong? Even in marriage, is sex something that should never be pursued for the sake of physical pleasure, but instead only for practical reasons..i.e. children?"

I think we have to be very careful here. By focussing first on sexual passion which doubtless is present during sexual intercourse we risk justifying in our own minds precisely what is most ambiguous & potentially destructive in the present relationship- sexual passion.

Instead I would suggest returning to the Patristic perspective which is based first on focussing on love as defined by self-restraint in all things. Then combined with this is the realistic acknowledgement of the Frs that the sexual drive exists in its present form and will until Christ's Second Coming.

What this realistic acknowledgement means is too long to go into here in detail. But it does mean that the Church understands that sexuality partly refers to love & the desire for communion so that it never completely condemns sexuality. Rather as constantly referred to in the Holy Frs sexuality is to be at all times subject to self-control. It must also always be set within the context of love which both recognises the sacredness of the other person and achieves this through an understanding of what one has been personally called to by God. Thus others are not to be used and abused & the way this is achieved is by being a husband, or a brother, or a friend, or even a monastic.

This last point especially alerts us that we should not focus first on sexual passion and then think this is blessed by the Church. Rather we must focus on love & human relationships, and while acknowledging sexuality understand how this latter is blessed within the type of relationships God has called us to.

Thus I don't think there is something called 'sanctified marital sex'. Rather sexuality within the context of the relationship we have been called to within Christ is blessed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father David Moser

18-08-2006, 06:14 PM

So here are the big questions:

Is it possible that the passions and sexual desire which are aroused in a sinless way through sanctified marital sex could somehow carry over and cause the arousal of unholy desire and extra-marital mental lust? Is all sexual passion, whether in marriage or out of it, equally wrong? ... Furthermore, what is sanctified marital sex...? (I don't mean "details", just a concept of what sex is like properly in marriage.)

First you have to get past the idea that sex is "good" or "bad". Sex is simply a condition of our fallen state. In one sense, everything about our fallen state is "bad" since it distorts the image of God with which we were created. God is not out to judge or punish us however, He is out to heal us. Thus He gives us therapeutic exercises the purpose of which are to "undistort" that image and bring us to His likeness. These therapeutic exercises are often "hard work" and since their purpose is to root out and overcome the passions they are also in a sense "painful". In our ego centric, pleasure loving perspective this therapy can sometimes appear to be punishment - but only when we lose sight of its purpose.

So back o sex. Sex is a condition of our fallen nature in that it is related to the body, and the body that we have is "clothed with skin" - that is it is become like unto the animals. The body with which we were created, is, according to the Holy Fathers, much more akin to that of the angels - light, nearly spiritual. Because we have forgotten that body, we have no idea what "sex" or its analogue might have been in that condition - all we know is the fallen version of it. The fallen version of sex is polluted with passionate lust, and it is that passion which must be tamed. Because this is an intrinsic part of our fallen condition, neither good nor evil but simply fallen, God has allowed a means by which sex can be "practiced" with the least involvement of the passionate element (I am NOT talking about taking all the romance out of a relationship here). Our passions are the basic urges which are rooted in both the body and the soul which are focused solely on the gratification of the self. Thus one of the ways that the passions are overcome and brought into their proper place is by *control*. So we have sex - but only within marriage. And we have sex within marriage - but subject to certain constraints (such as the mutually agreed upon times of abstinence). Sex becomes a willing act rather than a willful act and expresses our self sacrificing love for our spouse rather than the desire for self pleasure; to "get some" or satisfy the "itch".

I don't think one can make the case that sex is somehow holy or that it is a "spiritual" or "worshipful" act (although I have read attempts at doing that), however, neither is it "bad" or "evil". Sex within marriage is like eating food to keep the body going. Eating - or at least the need to eat - (like sex) is a condition of our fallen nature (how many of the desert saints were given the grace to live eating only a few ounces of bread and drinking a few cups of water a week - or even given the grace to no longer need to eat or drink at all). But eating can bring great evil - when we overeat, or when we focus on eating only the tastiest or rarest or highest quality foods, or even when we put too much attention in eating only "healthy foods" in particular quantities at particular times to sculpt the body in a particular manner. Eating can be just as great a source of harm to the soul as sex - but people don't generally attach the same guilt load to eating as they do sex.

As for specifics, it is best to work with your spiritual father to see what best applies to your life.

Even in marriage, is sex something that should never be pursued for the sake of physical pleasure, but instead only for practical reasons..i.e. children?... But I am not sure I understand Theophilus' reasoning, as I was under the impression that the Orthodox teach that the primary function of marriage is to aid in the salvation of our spouse.

To learn about the purpose of marriage, I strongly suggest that you read through the Orthodox marriage ceremony and pay attention to the various prayers and blessings. Here is a good article on marriage which includes the service: http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/english/marriage.htm Another good source to gain an understanding of marriage is a collection various talks by St John Chrysostom called "On Marriage and Family Life" published by SVS. There is another article online that also focuses on St John's Chrysostom's teaching about marriage at: http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/english/marriage_chrysostom_e.htm

Here are two additional articles that might help answer some questions about sex in marriage:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frluke_newage.aspx
http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah/homily_sexual_relations.htm
These are both off a website that has a number of articles on marriage and family life in general some of which you might find useful:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/pr_family.aspx

Fr David Moser

acedaroflebanon

18-08-2006, 06:30 PM

Father Raphael,
Thanks for the helpful and informative answer. I do still have some questions though, and I offer my most sincere apologies if I come across as harsh or judgemental or rebellious...I am just trying to understand. I am hungering and thirsting after righteousness in this area of sex.

First off we need to be clear that passions and sexual desire cannot be aroused in a sinless way. The sexual and physical expression of intercourse results from the Fall- the Holy Fathers are clear about this.

Okay, I am fine with this idea that sexual intercourse as we have it today did not exist until after the fall. But, does that really mean that all sexual intercourse is somehow tainted with sinfulness? It is a product of a need that did not exist until after the fall, of that I have no doubt, and that need is the need to reprpoduce our species, since, before the fall, we did not die, because Adam had not sinned and so death had not yet entered the world.
But God gave us sexuality as a legitimate way to fulfill this need for reproduction, did he not? To say that all sexual expression is somehow sinful, even in marriage, sounds a bit Ausgustinian to me...and I realise that Augistine had his view because sex is a fleshly, material thing, which is inherently evil because of it's materiality, and that the Orthodox have their view because sex is a product of a sinful situation, but, no matter how you get there, it's still the same conclusion: all sex is always bad all the time. It doesn't make sense that just because it is a result of the fall, it is automatically sinful, does it? Is sickness (physical illness) inherently sinful? Do I sin every time I have a cold? Moreover, is repentenance somehow sinful? We had no need to repent until we had sinned, placing it soundly in the realm of things that came into existence after the fall. These things also are a product of a world filled with death and imperfection.

...the Church understands that sexuality partly refers to love & the desire for communion so that it never completely condemns sexuality.

How can this be? If sexuality is infused with sin, but the church never completely condemns sexuality, then doesn't this mean that the Church never completely condemns sin? As far as this goes, if lust is the real issue making sex sinful, then we have got a big problem...How is it possible to have sex, even sex in marriage, without experiencing physical pleasure? God made it that way when he gave it to us, it feels good. Why would he trap us into a situation where he gives us sex for reproduction so that we can give him more human beings to worship him, and he makes it feel good, so that we want to keep on doing it, and he gets more and more worshippers, yet somehow, each time we have sex we are sinning? It seems like it has been designed in such a way to make us want to do it more. Has God played a joke on us?

Rather as constantly referred to in the Holy Frs sexuality is to be at all times subject to self-control.

Then what exactly is self-controlled marital sex?

Rather we must focus on love & human relationships, and while acknowledging sexuality understand how this latter is blessed within the type of relationships God has called us to.

So this seems to indicate an instance where sex is not sinful, which has got me really confused.

sorry if i offend
nick

M. Markewich

18-08-2006, 08:17 PM

Would the example of the relationship given in the Song of Solomon be an example of controlled romance? Both Solomon and the woman seem to have passion for one another.

Father David Moser

18-08-2006, 08:24 PM

It (sex) is a product of a need that did not exist until after the fall, of that I have no doubt, and that need is the need to reprpoduce our species, since, before the fall, we did not die, because Adam had not sinned and so death had not yet entered the world.
But God gave us sexuality as a legitimate way to fulfill this need for reproduction, did he not?

Nick,

Because of the shift in the doctrines about the nature of original sin, of sin in general, and of redemption brought about by the influence of questionable theological writings of St Augustine (remember Augustine is considered a saint because of the example of his profound repentance - not because he is considered a teacher and father of the Church) and the later development by Aquinas and Anselm, the Roman Catholic Church had to create a "justification" for sex and this "justification" is the procreation of children. Sex became, for Roman Catholic theologians a "necessary evil" for the continuation of the race. But all of that is foreign to Orthodoxy. Your R/C background and baggage is the root of your thinking above and the source of a lot of your confusion. Do not try to impose R/C structure on Orthodox thinking - it only leads to headaches.

As to the statement you made above. The "need to procreate" is not part of the fall. The command to multiply and increase and populate the earth (procreation) was given to Adam and Eve *before* they sinned - Gen 1:27&28. How they might have done this is unknown to us, but we do know that sexual intercourse is not the only means of human reproduction (how do we know this - why the Virgin birth of course. This is only one example, but it opens the door to the possibility of procreation by some other means than the usual) So the "need" to procreate was already there before the fall. But in the fall we became like unto the animals and so lost the possibility of procreation except by "animal" means - thus the "need" for procreation by sexual intercourse.

As Fr Raphael says, this is a pretty complex area and we need to be careful how we look at it. Another thing that seems to cause you difficulty is the tendency to make "fallen" and "sinful" synonymous or likewise to inextricably associate sinful and guilty. When you talk about getting a cold, you're on the right track but take it a little further. Sinfulness is itself a sickness - it is a spiritual sickness for which we need to be healed. Sins are the symptoms of this sickness and the fallen condition is general state in which we find ourselves because of our sickness. This whole "spiritual health" medical model is much more consistent with the teaching of Orthodoxy than the Roman "spiritual court" legal model. The medical model focuses on Jesus Christ as the Great Physician who expends even His life in order to cure His sick creation while the legal model focuses of Jesus Christ as the judge who is forced to condemn us to death and the only way He can avoid doing so is to die Himself. Two very different approaches - one filled with compassion and healing, the other with judgement and condemnation. In one God forgives our sins and then sets about healing the damage that sin has done. In the other God wants to forgive us but is prevented by the "law" and so takes on the condemnation that He cannot overcome. You see, this conversation is not just about sex in marriage - it's much larger about creation, the fall, and redemption. It's about the mind and heart of the Church, which is the mind and heart of Christ.

Fr David Moser

acedaroflebanon

18-08-2006, 09:41 PM

Father Moser,

You have a remarkable way of humbling me with the vast humility of your own words. Thanks for that.

Could you, for the sake of my peace of mind, then, supply me with what is the proper Orthodox teaching about sex in marriage, rather than all of this speculation, even though it is nice to contemplate these things.

I just would like some sort of concrete teaching, I guess, although, I have also been talking about this to our priest as well.

acedaroflebanon

18-08-2006, 10:08 PM

How they might have done this is unknown to us, but we do know that sexual intercourse is not the only means of human reproduction (how do we know this - why the Virgin birth of course.

But I still don't understand how this fact makes hour currently posessed sexual method inherently sinful. And if it is not a sin, but just fallen, then why should we have a need to avoid it if we are married? Gosh, Orthodox theosis is so much different from western justification that it is hard to grasp for a while. I mean, it is so much more clear and it makes so much more sense, but, to people like my wife and I who have been indoctrinated with justification all our lives, this requires a total change of mind and heart....that's nuts. But in a good way.

Matthew Panchisin

18-08-2006, 10:19 PM

Here is a good read.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Fr. Alexey Young

The Orthodox Christian Home What is an Orthodox Christian home? To answer this question we must go back to square one and talk about the three main ingredients of true love. Our Faith teaches us that love is composed of three parts - not all of them of equal importance:

the physical
the mental
the spiritual
The physical is obvious: a boy is naturally attracted to a girl physically. This is the part of love which is usually very dominant early in a relationship. But there must also be a mental attraction between a man and a woman if they are going to have a successful marriage: by that I mean that they should have many interesting things to talk about, and genuinely enjoy each other's company, being interested in each other's total personality. This is an aspect of love that must last for the duration of the marriage, until death. Sadly, it is often the first part of love that dies; and it dies simply because it has not been nurtured by both spouses. Thirdly, love consists of spiritual attraction. When two young people can talk about God and agree. They must be able to talk about the goals of life and agree; no wall should exist between them when they talk about the purpose of life. In other words, they have common goals. If they do not have common goals, if they believe differently about God, how can they seriously travel the path of life together? So, the most important ingredient of true love is this spiritual oneness.

What most often happens, however, is this: the spiritual attraction of love is completely overlooked or ignored by two people contemplating marriage. They experience a physical and mental attraction and they get married. They have never really dealt with the spiritual aspect, so that does not exist in their marriage, and soon, because of a lack of hard work and nurturing, the mental attraction that had originally existed begins to fade and finally dies. Then they are left with the physical attraction. And if there is nothing more substantial to base a marriage on than a physical attraction, then the first time a third person comes along to whom one of the partners is more strongly attracted, the marriage dissolves, and we have the tragedy of adultery being committed by one of both spouses and, ultimately, divorce.

Our society completely ignores the spiritual side of love, and is hostile even to the importance of a mental compatibility between a man and a woman; but the physical, the sexual - that's another matter: that is one aspect of love that our society exalts above all others. You have only to walk into a bookstore and count the number of sex manuals to get the point.

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, seeks to keep all three ingredients in a state of harmony, but the spiritual aspect governing the other two. If we remember that the primary purpose of a marriage is the same as that of the Church: the attainment of eternal salvation, then we can see why the spiritual part of a marriage must not only govern the physical and mental, but must be nurtured and encouraged to grow.

Father David Moser

18-08-2006, 11:01 PM

Father Moser,

You have a remarkable way of humbling me with the vast humility of your own words. Thanks for that.

Oh dear, its not my intent to humble anyone - please forgive me if I hve caused you offense, it was not in any way intentional.

Could you, for the sake of my peace of mind, then, supply me with what is the proper Orthodox teaching about sex in marriage, rather than all of this speculation, even though it is nice to contemplate these things.

I just would like some sort of concrete teaching, I guess, although, I have also been talking about this to our priest as well.

I guess I thought that I had given some excellent resources for that, much better than I could give on my own. Please allow me reiterate then what I said a couple of posts ago so as to highlight those resources:

To learn about the purpose of marriage, I strongly suggest that you read through the Orthodox marriage ceremony and pay attention to the various prayers and blessings. Here is a good article on marriage which includes the service: http://www.fatheralexander2.org/book...h/marriage.htm Another good source to gain an understanding of marriage is a collection various talks by St John Chrysostom called "On Marriage and Family Life" published by SVS. There is another article online that also focuses on St John's Chrysostom's teaching about marriage at: http://www.fatheralexander2.org/book...rysostom_e.htm

Here are two additional articles that might help answer some questions about sex in marriage:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frluke_newage.aspx
http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah..._relations.htm
These are both off a website that has a number of articles on marriage and family life in general some of which you might find useful:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/pr_family.aspx

Fr David Moser

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-08-2006, 02:55 PM

There is no simple answer to the question of sexuality and marriage. This is because sexuality itself is some peculiar energy within us which can lead to both heaven and hell. Love can be expressed through it but also the most terrible selfishness & depravity. That is why at the end of the day advice about this has to take these two into account and also the actual state of the person(s) involved.

The Church counsels self-control in all things. But then the question comes up about sexuality and especially physical intercourse within marriage. If physical sexuality as we know it is a result of the Fall then how can it be blessed within marriage?

Blessed does not mean sanctified. Sexuality is not a holy activity because it can never be completely separated from the sensuality and selfishness which results from the Fall. But yet within marriage it can be blessed (note the words can be which many now replace with is) since it can direct itself in a blessed way. It is wrong however to think and act as if this blessing means that physical intercourse itself is holy. This can only lead to selfishness or the worship of sensuality.

The striking thing is that in this society which defines itself so much on sensuality we Orthodox also have worked out a whole 'spirituality' which also ends up exalting many of these same values. Many of us are simply unaware or not committed to accepting that the Church leads us to focus first not on sexuality but rather on purity. And those in the married state are also called to this same commitment of purity.

I think if purity is something which we are working on so that it gradually becomes our main focus then questions about sexuality answer themselves over time. The call to purity does not mean the rejection of sexuality. The problem though is when we try to combine physical sexuality & the call to purity as if they were two equal priorities.

Instead we need to readjust ourselves so that purity is our major focus. Within marriage we do not disdain the marriage bed. But to exalt it in the way we have is to distort its place within the life of a Christian. Indeed I would even go so far as to say that if this remains the main focus for ones entire married life then something fundamental to what love is has been left out.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Scott Pierson

19-08-2006, 04:15 PM

I'm not an expert so take what I say with a grain of salt.. but if it were possible I would remove your computer from your house unless you need it for work related things and even then if you cant break the habbit you might want to find another line of work (if possible of course). It is very very hard to stop any addiction if you have the object of your addiction just sitting there right next to you. How many smokers could stop smoking if every day they picked up their pack of ciggerates and smelled them, played with the box, etc... Thats why they tell people in AA or NA that they need to isolate themselves from people who use and places in which drug usage is common and I would assume the same would be helpful with internet porn addiction. It might sound hard to live without a computer because they have so many neat things you can do on them but it might be necesary at least for a couple of years. They also have 12 step programs you can attend that help people with various sexual addictions. If you have to use the computer maybe you could have someone else put adult filtering software on it so that you dont know the password to get past it or whatnot too. If it is possible maybe you could have someone else in the room with you when you use the computer ? If you couple that with the suggestions that other people have given about prayer fasting and all that I would think there would be a greater probability of getting the adiction under control. Eventually you might be able to use the computer again without the strong desires.

Ken McRae

20-08-2006, 06:11 AM

I've been fasting the srictest possible fast each WED. and FRI. (the only thing I eat those days is raw food, and only one, maybe two small meals also. only drinking water too.) I attempted the Dormition Fast recently, though for a novice as myself, two weeks is pretty difficult. Though I did manage not to drink any milk.

I missed this part the first time around, hence my subsequent remark(s) on fasting. Sorry about that. As far as the Church's prescribed fasts go, though, I believe these are considered as a kind of bare minimum, such that St. Seraphim of Sarov could say that the man who does not keep (observe) them is not a Christian.

The ascetic fathers, as a general rule, though, approached fasting as a way of life, and not something to be practiced on and off, according to seasons. Its true benefits are realized when it becomes a way of life, and not merely an externally imposed seasonal practice. Its spiritual benefits are hard to see after just a day or two, versus forty days, or even forty years in the desert!

... I've been trying to be constantly praying the Jesus Paryar Mentally (but that is REALLY hard to do, no wonder they have to practice it so much.)

The great Russian elders, descending from St. Paisius Velichkovsky, encouraged novices to prayer the Jesus Prayer, but never mentally. Mental prayer, (i.e. praying the Jesus Prayer internally, without moving the mouth or lips,) is reserved for those in the second stage of theosis, they counsel; which is to say, for Proficients who've made some progress in the virtues. So, whisper or mumble it under your breath, just loud enough for no one else to hear but yourself.

Maybe I am not vigilant enough. What advice is there on keeping one's self constantly vigilant?

It goes without saying that spiritual perfection is achieved neither quickly nor easily. So it is not right for us to desire to reach the top rung of the Ladder in a single step. Nor must we despair of making progress, but rather learn something from our repeated falls.

If you're anything like me, though, you'll get knocked out, over and over again, before you learn to keep your guard up, block and counter-punch! Some have called this "the school of hard knocks"! :)

You are on the right track, though, by practicing unceasing prayer. However, I recommend again that you read St. Ignatius Brianchaninov's Rule of Attention to Oneself (http://www.roca.org/OA/28/28d.htm)!

I remember last week, all week long I was praying the Jesus Prayer and I managed almost not to even look at a woman lustfully, or, when I noticed that I would, I immediately re-directed my thoughts. I felt so sucessful, and now this week it has no been so good.

Pride is the root cause of all sin, as previously intimated. It was the cause of Lucifer's fall, and Man's fall in Paradise. Thus, St. James the Apostle teaches that God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble; and Solomon in his vast wisdom says that pride always goes before a fall.

When we become high-minded and proud, (usually comparing ourselves to others,) the Lord humbles us by withdrawing His grace and leaving us to our own devices. Some will learn quickly, but most of us will learn slowly, while some will never learn, sadly!

I am not sure at what point somethign actually becomes sin. What about the period when in my head I resist the thought, but the thought is there no matter if I resist it or not? Like, images that I cannot get out of my mind, even if those images don't cause me to act because I immediately resist thinking about it. Does it eventually go away?

The thought becomes sin when you consent to it. Whether or not these thoughts and images go away will depend largely on you. However, the scars in most cases will remain for life. By scars, I mean the memories. Some saints have had their memories so purified that no traces or scars of past sins remained; but this is not the norm, I think.

In his grace-filled book entitled The Arena, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov counsels monks to avoid any and all acquaintance with women. And in the process of explaining why, he tells a story about St. Jerome of the West. As a young and inexperienced monk, he thought nothing of frequenting female company (in the purest manner, of course). It never seemed to bother him, but he was not really engaged at the time in serious contemplative prayer. Later in life, however, many long years after these contacts had occured, he began the arduous task of unceasing prayer, and uniting the mind with the heart. At that time, his inner storehouse of images began to release its horded treasures, and the images and faces and of these woman began to frequently surface within him, thus causing him many, many untold distractions and heart-aches!

However, as the first stage of theosis consists largely in breaking old habits and forming new ones, you can be sure your "old man" will not agree to being crucified without putting up a fierce "life and death" struggle! The degree of difficulty, though, will be determined by many factors, not least of which is your "old-man's" past vices. St. Mary of Egypt doubtless had a greater struggle passing through the first stage than most others, I suspect. The second stage will not likely be as difficult, though I confess the above story about St. Jerome gives me some pause to wonder about that!

Ken McRae

20-08-2006, 07:24 AM

... the Roman Catholic Church had to create a "justification" for sex and this "justification" is the procreation of children. Sex became, for Roman Catholic theologians a "necessary evil" for the continuation of the race. But all of that is foreign to Orthodoxy.

Here are two additional articles that might help answer some questions about sex in marriage:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frluke_newage.aspx
http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah..._relations.htm

The Webmaster's Comments on Fr. Luke's Essay entitled New Age Philosophy, Orthodox Thought, and Marriage (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frluke_newage.aspx) :-

Fr. Luke's article is important because it brings to light some trends in Orthodox thinking that are antithetical to the Patristic consensus concerning marriage and especially sexuality. In sharp contrast to some modern views, consider the following scholarly conclusions of the Serbian Hierarch, Bishop Artemije, a spiritual son of Blessed Justin of Chelije. At the end of his article "The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light" (Divine Ascent, Volume 1, Numbers 3/4 (1999), pp. 56-57) his Grace writes:

On the basis of all that has been said thus far, we are able to surmise the Church’s teaching on Marriage and may concisely define it as follows:

1) The Church, adhering faithfully to the Lord Jesus, the Holy Apostles, and the Holy Fathers, puts virginity on a higher level than marriage, for "the unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or virgin is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; hut the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (I Cor. 7:32-35).

2) Because of our weakness, the Church also allows marriage, blesses it, and hallows it. In this way she sanctifies the natural union of two "into one flesh" and renders it a Mystery-Sacrament. Conjugal relations within marriage are blessed only for the sake of procreation.

3) The Church condescends to our weaknesses even further and also tolerates relations within marriage that result from "lack of self-control" (in accordance with I Cor. 7:5-9), when such relations do not have procreation as their immediate purpose, but rather serve as medicine against immorality or adultery (that is, extramarital relations). When such is the case, one ought to realize and acknowledge his lack of self-control and to humble himself before the Lord. He should not expect to receive crowns for his weakness, but rather should hope that God will have mercy on him because of his humility. This condescension on the part of the Church, however, is not to be construed as a toleration of any prophylactic measures that would prevent the possible conception of a child.

4) The Church cannot condescend any further, and she considers sinful any means or method, whether natural or artificial to prevent conception and avoid procreation. For they who employ such means prove that they consider sensual pleasure the sole purpose of intercourse. From this it becomes evident why the Church does not permit Holy Communion to such individuals, nor to anyone else who does not conform to the Apostle’s ordinance concerning self-control (I Cor. 7:5) and to the sacred canons of the Orthodox Church.*

* See Canon LXIX of the Holy Apostles and the commentary in The Rudder, 94. See also the following canons and the commentaries on them: Canon XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Ibid. 230: Canon III of Dionysios of Alexandria, Ibid. 549—50; Canon XIII of Timothy of Alexandria, Ibid 672-73; Canon V of John the Faster, Ibid. 702.

A Miscellaneous Observation:-

In the fourth point above, Bishop Artemije states the following: The Orthodox Church "considers sinful any means or method, whether natural or artificial to prevent conception and avoid procreation. For they who employ such means prove that they consider sensual pleasure the sole purpose of intercourse."

Now, it appears crystal clear to me from this particular remark that Bishop Artemije is saying that the Church judges it a sin for her children to engage in conjugal relations purely and solely for the pleasure of it. This is even more abundantly clear from his second point: "Conjugal relations within marriage are blessed only for the sake of procreation!"

Now this raises an interesting question: What happens to conjugal relations if either partner proves infertile, and completely incapable of producing children? At that point, it would seem conjugal relations occur purely for pleasure. But what do the Scriptures say about the love of pleasure and sensuality?

Ken McRae

20-08-2006, 08:12 AM

Pride is the root cause of all sin ...

Well, to tell the truth, I'm kind of torn between pride and prelest. Solomon says pride always goes before a fall, and James says God gives grace to the humble, thus impying He withdraws it from the proud. Forgive me for thinking out loud, here, but what gives birth to pride, or vice versa, to prelest? What caused Lucifer to fall into prelest? Or even Adam, for that matter? Surely Adam was deluded to think God lied to him.

Father David Moser

20-08-2006, 03:24 PM

The Webmaster's Comments on Fr. Luke's Essay ... In sharp contrast to some modern views, consider the following scholarly conclusions of the [B][I]Serbian Hierarch, Bishop Artemije,

I would just like to point out that this commentary is one view, it is the teaching of some within the Church, but not necessarily the only teaching within the Church. The "webmaster" to whom you refer is a person that I know and he is very much like our own "webmaster" here on this website (that would be Matthew) - a pious and serious Orthodox man of scholarly demeanor, however, not a clergyman. Nor is he married and so does not have any experience or real perspective in the realm of marriage. Thus I expect his comments and opinions to reflect the fact that he does not have this perspective. Bishop Artemije, likewise, while a student of St Justin, is not St Justin. Certainly I would never dare to criticize any hiearach who has suffered so greatly for the faith as have the archpastors of the Serbian Church, however, I also would note that Bishop Artemije is one voice within the Church - not the only voice certainly.

I say these things only as a cautionary measure so that we do not get stuck in crowning this or that person as "infallible" (or "infallible on this subject") simply because they are knowledgeable or lead a pious life or even because they are recognized as saints by the Church. The Chuch only rarely speaks through the voice of one man and even then that voice is confirmed by the concensus (a weak term, but it is the only English word I can think of to say "sobornost") of the whole Church. In the end this is a pastoral issue that requires the compassionate and merciful application of the teaching of the Church to the life of the person involved by their spiritual father in such a manner as to be most effective for their salvation. It is not "one size fits all" nor is it "black and white".

Fr David Moser

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-08-2006, 03:38 PM

The Webmaster's Comments on Fr. Luke's Essay entitled New Age Philosophy, Orthodox Thought, and Marriage (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frluke_newage.aspx) :-

Fr. Luke's article is important because it brings to light some trends in Orthodox thinking that are antithetical to the Patristic consensus concerning marriage and especially sexuality. In sharp contrast to some modern views, consider the following scholarly conclusions of the Serbian Hierarch, Bishop Artemije, a spiritual son of Blessed Justin of Chelije. At the end of his article "The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light" (Divine Ascent, Volume 1, Numbers 3/4 (1999), pp. 56-57) his Grace writes:

On the basis of all that has been said thus far, we are able to surmise the Church’s teaching on Marriage and may concisely define it as follows:

1) The Church, adhering faithfully to the Lord Jesus, the Holy Apostles, and the Holy Fathers, puts virginity on a higher level than marriage, for "the unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or virgin is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; hut the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (I Cor. 7:32-35).

2) Because of our weakness, the Church also allows marriage, blesses it, and hallows it. In this way she sanctifies the natural union of two "into one flesh" and renders it a Mystery-Sacrament. Conjugal relations within marriage are blessed only for the sake of procreation.

3) The Church condescends to our weaknesses even further and also tolerates relations within marriage that result from "lack of self-control" (in accordance with I Cor. 7:5-9), when such relations do not have procreation as their immediate purpose, but rather serve as medicine against immorality or adultery (that is, extramarital relations). When such is the case, one ought to realize and acknowledge his lack of self-control and to humble himself before the Lord. He should not expect to receive crowns for his weakness, but rather should hope that God will have mercy on him because of his humility. This condescension on the part of the Church, however, is not to be construed as a toleration of any prophylactic measures that would prevent the possible conception of a child.

4) The Church cannot condescend any further, and she considers sinful any means or method, whether natural or artificial to prevent conception and avoid procreation. For they who employ such means prove that they consider sensual pleasure the sole purpose of intercourse. From this it becomes evident why the Church does not permit Holy Communion to such individuals, nor to anyone else who does not conform to the Apostle’s ordinance concerning self-control (I Cor. 7:5) and to the sacred canons of the Orthodox Church.*

* See Canon LXIX of the Holy Apostles and the commentary in The Rudder, 94. See also the following canons and the commentaries on them: Canon XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Ibid. 230: Canon III of Dionysios of Alexandria, Ibid. 549—50; Canon XIII of Timothy of Alexandria, Ibid 672-73; Canon V of John the Faster, Ibid. 702.

A Miscellaneous Observation:-

In the fourth point above, Bishop Artemije states the following: The Orthodox Church "considers sinful any means or method, whether natural or artificial to prevent conception and avoid procreation. For they who employ such means prove that they consider sensual pleasure the sole purpose of intercourse."

Now, it appears crystal clear to me from this particular remark that Bishop Artemije is saying that the Church judges it a sin for her children to engage in conjugal relations purely and solely for the pleasure of it. This is even more abundantly clear from his second point: "Conjugal relations within marriage are blessed only for the sake of procreation!"

Now this raises an interesting question: What happens to conjugal relations if either partner proves infertile, and completely incapable of producing children? At that point, it would seem conjugal relations occur purely for pleasure. But what do the Scriptures say about sensuality and the love of pleasure?

This is also where I was going in my comments above especially when it comes to the idea which has become popular among many of us that sexual pleasure (of course within marriage only) is holy. Indeed a whole spirituality about this has been worked out to try to justify this.

I agree for the most part with what Bp Artemije writes especially about what I take to be his main point- sensuality even within marriage is not a holy thing.

I think this leaves us however with the very important question that arises since most people are so far from being able to keep to this mark. What pastoral and practical advice is one to give? That sex except for procreation is sinful is well worth considering- but for most the reality is that they would find this crushing and impossible to put into practice. Basically then this would be to leave people only with guilt & frustration.

I would suggest that even if we try to change the focus on sexuality from what is often heard we still need to keep in mind pastoral discernment. In so much in practice our advice comes down to the reality of those we deal with- not only ideals but also the actual strengthes & weaknesses of those before us. Otherwise especially in this case we drive people to having a secret life away from the 'prying eyes of the Church'.

At this point my main questions are of the focus we should have and the proper way to put this into practice.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

alexei

21-08-2006, 06:47 PM

"Conjugal relations within marriage are blessed only for the sake of procreation!"

I understand that we are sinful, carnal beings, especially given our society's morbid fascination with sex. I also understand that we shouldn't 'spritualize' sex and make it into a religious experience.

However, the view you've presented seems reductionistic and utilitarian to me, almost to the point of being Pharisaical.

If Evdokimov is too far to the left, this is too far to the right. But, that's just my opinion, I guess, and I have no theological training.

acedaroflebanon

22-08-2006, 04:31 AM

I have to line up with the things Father Raphael has been saying about this being a very sensitive issue. There are just so many different paths to take that all seem to fit in with a little bit of Orthodoxy.

On the one hand, I can certainly see a valid defense for the argument where procreation is the only reason for sex. I know that in my own personal life, (as I have said earlier) that when the sexual drive is activated, it does not matter whether it is activated by my wife or by an image that I see or whatever. It is simply there, and it is really hard to distinguish it into an only "appropriate" (if you will) context, which is marriage. So it seems that the less it is activated, the better.

But...

It is easier to control the sexual urge when we are single, precisely for the fact that no matter what, all sex is totally inappropriate for a single person. However, I really don't think that is true for those who are married. It is harder to control this passion if we are married because there are times (even if you want to say that those times are only for procreation) when it is appropriate (but fallen) for these urges to be aroused. Doesn't it sound weird to say "Let's have some kids...no wait, we can't have some kids, because sex is inappropriate all the time." ?? That seems weird to me. It's not the phsical act itself that is the issue, but, the lust attached to the physical act. In other words, if we could have sex with our spouse without feeling any feelings of lust or selfishness in how good it feels to us personally, and instead, only be focused on our spouse's needs, then it would probably not be a bad thing at all. The problem is that what I just described is almost totally impossible, specifically because sex does feel so good.

In his sermons on Marriage and Family life, St. John Chrysostom himself, the great defender of virginity, says that "even for couples who are unable to bear children, the act of intercourse still effects the joining together of their flesh into one." (paraphrased)

He also says, "the woman receives the man's seed with RICH PLEASURE, and a child is produced." (again, paraphrased.)

(I'm not Orthodox yet, so all you who are should correct all of this.)

Just some more to ponder...

acedaroflebanon

22-08-2006, 04:35 AM

Theophilus said:
Now, it appears crystal clear to me from this particular remark that Bishop Artemije is saying that the Church judges it a sin for her children to engage in conjugal relations purely and solely for the pleasure of it.

I was under the impression that regardless of what a Bishop says on his own, regardless of how respected and wise he is known to be, his personal words are not the same as he weight of the council of the whole church. So, just because he says this does not necessarily mean the Church as a whole teaches it, nor, really, does it make it true.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

22-08-2006, 05:34 PM

Theophilus said:

I was under the impression that regardless of what a Bishop says on his own, regardless of how respected and wise he is known to be, his personal words are not the same as he weight of the council of the whole church. So, just because he says this does not necessarily mean the Church as a whole teaches it, nor, really, does it make it true.

I think Fr David's words of a few days ago are very important so that we understand what we are reading. What do Abp Artemije's words mean? As Nick suggests this isn't likely to be some sort of straining at gnats before considering relations with your wife. I wonder then if the meaning of the Abp's advice (which is very often heard) is found by turning it around? Then it's message would be that sexuality within marriage is not a license for indulging in sensuality and lust.

There's obviously a lot more to consider in all of this but at least this may be something to think about.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Scott Pierson

23-08-2006, 02:49 AM

4) The Church cannot condescend any further, and she considers sinful any means or method, whether natural or artificial to prevent conception and avoid procreation. For they who employ such means prove that they consider sensual pleasure the sole purpose of intercourse. From this it becomes evident why the Church does not permit Holy Communion to such individuals, nor to anyone else who does not conform to the Apostle’s ordinance concerning self-control (I Cor. 7:5) and to the sacred canons of the Orthodox Church.*

I was listening to EWTN Catholic radio a while back and the host said that "all Christian churches prior to ( I forgot the exact date) taught that artificial birth control was sinful and to be avoided by Christians"... and that the first major denomination to break that consensus was the Anglican church. I also see that Catholics occasionally argue against the Orthodox Church being the true Church because the "Orthodox have changed their view on birth control" (exactly how they know every Orthodox Bishop , Priest and layman supports birth control is beyond me its not like we have a pope who can unilaterally decide the Orthodox view on birth control). It appears that there is a little truth to the idea that there has been some change of view among many Orthodox though , in that it does seem that many Orthodox support the use of condoms and artificial means of birth control.... Do any of the saints or Fathers support such things ?.. I really couldn’t imagine St Chrysostem for example telling people "hey if you don’t want a kid just take some herbs or whatnot that make it so you cant get pregnant". Natural family planning which require the use of sexual restraint and knowledge of body rhythms and cycles and such seems to be more on target to me (it can actually be more effective then condoms too). But I guess I can understand why one might be opposed to that as well , saying that it reduces sex to physical pleasure.... The Pope also make a good point about condoms and the pill contributing to the culture of death and abortion.

Matthew Panchisin

23-08-2006, 07:35 AM

Dear Scott,

We have discussed this issue before, you might want to read the Moscow Patriarchates teaching on the matter. I don't have a link handy but should I find it I'll certainly post it.

Also I would be grateful if you edit (remove) your last sentence in ().

I don't know of any Orthodox Hierarchs or Priest's that support or are pro-birth control, I do know that most say it's a pastoral matter, and a matter of intent and circumstances.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew Panchisin

23-08-2006, 08:05 AM

http://www.incommunion.org/articles/the-orthodox-church-and-society/xii

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: 'Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency' (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

Scott Pierson

23-08-2006, 01:55 PM

I don't know of any Orthodox Hierarchs or Priest's that support or are pro-birth control, I do know that most say it's a pastoral matter, and a matter of intent and circumstances.

Do you know any that support the use of condoms for contraception ? Maybe I was wrong for thinking that many do.

I certainly wouldnt say that use of non abortive artificial means of birth control (specifically the condom and the pill) are the same as abortion.. only that they feed into the same mentality of divorcing sex from its natural result (and one of its most important purposes). You dont want a kid but you want to pleasure yourself with another person.. just use a condom.. if she gets pregnant and the condoms fails just kill the baby.. type attitude. Natural Faimly Planning at least requires the use of a small amount of sexual restraint and the natural cycles of the body.

Also I would be grateful if you edit (remove) your last sentence in ()

No problem. Sorry about that I was just trying to be funny but I guess I was the only laughing.. it happens a lot. I'm not that big of a fan of the Latin Church or Pope John Paul 2 (I lost respect for him when I saw him kissing the Koran and because of some of the other outrageous things he has done.)

alexei

23-08-2006, 04:20 PM

Natural family planning which require the use of sexual restraint and knowledge of body rhythms and cycles and such seems to be more on target to me (it can actually be more effective then condoms too). But I guess I can understand why one might be opposed to that as well , saying that it reduces sex to physical pleasure....

Scot,

Evdokimov argues that the rhythm method and other such family planning strategies are really just designed to 'trick' nature, and I tend to agree with him.

Fr Aaron Warwick

23-08-2006, 08:29 PM

The issue of birth control is one that interests me a great deal. It is something that I wish would be addressed in some sort of conciliar fashion.

There are many factors relating to birth control that seem to lead me to only ask more questions. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I only have questions. I think that the following issues need to be addressed before one can make a reasonable decision regarding birth control.

1. What is the purpose (or are the purposes) of sex within marriage?
2. How does the birth control method desired to be used work?
3. Why is birth control being used? The mother's health? No kids are wanted? Financial problems? Cannot support additional children?

These are potential pastoral questions. In addition, there are other thoughts in my mind about birth control that I don't know how to answer.

1. Most experts are saying that the earth is overpopulated. Is it responsible in this day and age to have ten kids? Five kids?
2. There is a different scientific understanding of sperm and the reproductive process. Does that change our attitude about birth control?
3. Kids today are a financial liability. They used to be a financial asset. The more kids you had to help you out, the better. Today, rather than helping you financially, the majority of kids attend school for 13 years at least, and then potentially college.

These are at least some of the things that I would like to see addressed from an Orthodox perspective. It seems like too many people are blindly following "tradition" or are blindly following those secular "enlightened" minds that seem to desire to throw out tradition. I would like to see some serious discussion (not just on this list, but by our hierarchs) of the questions and statements I asked and made above.

Aaron

acedaroflebanon

24-08-2006, 04:18 AM

I recently purchased "Marriage as a Path to Holiness: Lives of Married Saints." from St. Tikhon's press. So far it is very helpful in this whole area. I recommend it to anyone who sincerely desires to understand the role of marriage and its relationship to the holiness we are all called to as Christians.

It's by David and Mary Ford. It's good.

nick

Matthew Panchisin

24-08-2006, 06:04 AM

Dear Scott,

Thanks for the editing. While I understand what you meant others that participate here that are in communion with Rome may not have been pleased with the remark. I also understand what you mean by loosing respect which might not go over as well as saying something like I disagree strongly with the Koran kiss.

I also see that Catholics occasionally argue against the Orthodox Church being the true Church because the "Orthodox have changed their view on birth control"

This has certainly been my experience as well. Additionally the marriage and divorce matter is often cited as proof that the Orthodox Church is not the true Church since we allow remarriage. Interesting enough it was allowed in the East very early in Church history when the Pope is often cited by those in communion with Rome as the one being in charge of the Church.

There is a great article by an Orthodox writer on the contraception matter, as soon as I can locate it I'll post it.

These things really show how we have some very different understandings. It was scantly 40 years ago when we had been told we are not the true Church because we allow a men to be married and become Priests, among several other things that Rome now says is ok for the East. I have come to the conclusion that we just process things much differently.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Scott Pierson

26-08-2006, 04:04 PM

Most experts are saying that the earth is overpopulated. Is it responsible in this day and age to have ten kids? Five kids?

I'm not sure if I buy into the overpopulation thing (http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_overpop.html). It seems just like another contrived "emergency" sort of like the Ozone hole, and man made global warming (http://www.akdart.com/warming.html) (did you know 20, 30 years ago the same people told us that global cooling and a new ice age was being brought on by man made effects?). Its basically an excuse to abort babies , push contraceptives , for scientists to collect government grants, and strengthen international law (the whole "new world order" thing)..

Certain areas of the world may be overpopulated (like the large cities in which people live stacked on top of each other like cockroaches) but the world it self is so massive. Every person in the entire world could stand in a 5 by 5 square in Wayne county alone (a county here in Michigan). Certainly people need more then a 5 by 5 square but it is something to think about.

If responsible people have less kids then they will be overrun by the kids of the irresponsible people who have more. If Orthodox families start to shrink because we are "responsible" and say the familys of muslims don’t shrink because they couldn’t give a doodoo about "overpopulation" then how will the Orthodox survive?

Olga

01-09-2006, 08:14 AM

I agree that 25 years ago we were being told the world was heading for an ice age, yet now it's global warming that's the big deal. Uncertain? Many would say "yes". Conspiracy? I don't put much faith in conspiracies, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. However, the hole in the ozone layer a "contrived emergency", Scott? Hmm ..... best not to try saying that to anyone who lives in southern Australia, where the hole is right over the top of us. The sun definitely has more bite than it did a generation ago, prompting health authorities to launch and maintain "sun-smart" campaigns to reduce the risk of skin cancer and other conditions such as eye cataracts.

Let's also not forget that a continent like Australia, though it is about the same size in land area to the US, has less than a tenth of the population of the US, and around 85-90% of its population is concentrated along its coast. This urban concentration is not a "new" phenomenon, these figures have remained essentially the same for well over a century. Why? A major reason is that vast areas of this country simply cannot support large-scale settlement of any great density, due to the harsh inland climate and lack of reliable, consistent water supply. People do live in inland regions, but population density is very low, less than two people per square kilometre. Alice Springs, the largest city (town?) in central Australia, has a population of only 28,000.

Drought conditions can affect large areas for years at a time, not just months. In figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which came out yesterday, several states have reported "lowest on record" rainfall for many of their regions.

www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml)

Scott Pierson

02-09-2006, 04:47 AM

. However, the hole in the ozone layer a "contrived emergency", Scott? Hmm ..... best not to try saying that to anyone who lives in southern Australia, where the hole is right over the top of us. The sun definitely has more bite than it did a generation ago, prompting health authorities to launch and maintain "sun-smart" campaigns to reduce the risk of skin cancer and other conditions such as eye cataracts.

I'm sorry I didnt know that. I just noticed that it was big news for a long time and then it totaly disapeared and everyone here stoped talking about it... its like hmm i guess everyone must have stoped using aerosal deoderant. Do you think the Ozone hole is really man made or is it possible just another natural occurence that changes cyclicaly or whatnot? I would assume that we would not have even been able to notice the ozone changes until rather recentally with the proper technology. I may be wrong though.

Audrey

22-11-2006, 07:22 PM

Nick-

I really understand your questions and I think they deserve good answers. I have the same questions as you. I am a relatively recent convert (chrismated in September) and I have a hard time believing that desiring sexual pleasure is sinful. I hope that you get the theological answers you are looking for; I am looking for the same answers right now. I think that Fr. David Moser's post was very helpful and I plan on checking out the links he provided to further information about sex within marriage.

For me I tend to think within psychological categories and that has proved very helpful for me in this area. I tend to think that physical pleasures are more tempting the less I am satisfied by love in my heart. My own approach to dealing with lust (besides accepting the fact that I do deal with it and fall regularly) is to pray to know God's love and to be in more intimate communion with Him. This is proving very effective. If sex is about communion then it is only as my desires for communion are satisfied that I will be able to practice more self-control in the area of physical pleasures. I hope I am right about this, anyways. There is a lot I don't know. But, I just pray for the paradise of God's love and intimate communion with me to dawn in my heart. I must believe that through communion with God there is more intimacy available than there is through sexual intercourse, and if I constantly pray for that communion I feel like I'm on the right track in battling lust.

God Bless you and thanks for your honest questions that I know many of us have.

Audrey

Andreas Moran

23-11-2006, 01:10 AM

Dear Audrey,

It's such a coincidence that this thread should be taken up again because I was reading these very posts from earlier this year just this afternoon. For myself, I am both heartened and humbled by your openness. One of the things I found attractive about Orthodoxy was the idea of not suppressing passions but transfiguring them. I cannot say I have succeeded in doing this, but at least I know what kind of effort I should be making. I do so agree with you that if we can focus on communion with God, we transfigure carnal desire into divine love. My spiritual father always says that when we have some difficulty, by way of, for example, disappointment or loneliness, we need consolation; but it is all too easy to find consolation in some form of pleasure than to make the effort to find true consolation in prayer and communion with God. I must say that I found Fr David's posts earlier in this thread very edifying.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Paul Cowan

23-11-2006, 02:13 AM

Hello Nick and others that are struggling with Sex addiction.

I will not try to compete with the spiritual responses above though they are good. Each person is different in their focus, abilities and desires to be rid of this disease. Yes, it is a disease. Just as alcoholism is a disease.

As AA is for alcoholics and OA is for overeaters, SAA is for Sex addicts. It is a 12 step program that helps men and women recover from destructive compulsive sexual activity. IT WORKS. I have been sober for 2 1/2 years. I am Orthodox. I am also a recovering sex addict. It is not easy. It is down right hard. It is possible to fight the temptations and attain mental sobriety as well as physical sobriety.

It is a spiritual program though you are allowed to find your own spiritual path within the program. SAA got me sober, Orthodoxy keeps me sober. I also rely heavily on the Unseen Warfare and the Spiritual Psalter. I pray to the Mother of God as well as the other Saints that fought this particular fight such as St. Mary of Egypt. My priest is aware of my recovery and is supportive of it and the program. Working the steps and working my Faith, I fully believe the originators of AA were Orthodox. I have not found a single step that contradicts our Faith. Or how to work it.

Orthodoxy will teach you Faith, SAA will teach you the steps and tools to stay sober so you can more fully stand on your faith. You cannot do one without the other. For those interested here is the National link to SAA. http://www.sexaa.org/ .

Forgive me for I butting in on the religious aspects of the conversation. The Holy Fathers also had tools at their disposal to fight their passions other than prayer. I am simply offering another.

Yours in recovery,
Paul

My brothers and sisters, there is a way out of sex addiction. Finding the right tools to use to do it can be hard.

Father David Moser

23-11-2006, 02:46 AM

Just recently I have had a similar conversation with two of my brother priests. I found this excerpt and shared it with them. It seems approprite to share that excerpt here as well:

Here is an excerpt of an article (by Fr Thomas Morelli) that I just read that I found to be interesting on the topic. While I don't always agree with everything this author writes, I did find some interesting information in this excerpt that was pertinent to our conversations.

The entire article is about homosexuality (which I know is not the topic at hand, however I include the reference here so that everything might be put into its proper prespective) and can be read at:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MorelliHomosexuality2.php

An Orthodox Theology of Sexuality

For Orthodox Christians, no discussion of sex whether it is autoeroticism, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or the current polyamorous sex, can be divorced from an Orthodox theology of sexuality. All sexuality and sexual behavior is based on divine love; a love that is beyond any human feeling, empathy, or ethical standard, and even approaches the essence of God Himself. St John tells us "... for love is of God ... God is love" (1 John 4:7-8).

This love is also given to man to experience and apply in relationships with his fellow man. It is evident through the coming of God's Son Jesus Christ, and actualized in the life of the believer through the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, because the love has its source and origin in God who is love, it can only be appropriated and applied in accordance with God's will, which is to say in accordance with the commandments of God. Archimandrite Sophrony (1999) quoted St. Silouan the Athonite on this necessary synergy: "Both Christ's commandments of love towards God and love toward neighbor make up a single life."

We get a glimpse of God's love in the writings of the Church Fathers when they spoke of the interrelationships of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Persons of the Holy Trinity commune among themselves in love. This love is the foundation of the creation; the cause by which creation came into being. Moreover, this love is extended to the creation as evidenced by the purpose for which Adam was created (to commune with God), as well as God's salvific activity that began as soon as Adam ruptured his communion through sin.

God's love is reflected in the anthropological ordering of creation. Genesis reveals that with the creation of Adam and Eve, man was created with two modes of being: male and female. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). (Male and female were created for communion with each other, thereby reflecting the intercommunion within the Persons of the Holy Trinity.) "Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Genesis 2:18).

Christian anthropology sees the male as the appropriate complement for the female, and the female for the male which includes moral boundaries of the sexual dimension of male and female intercommunion: " ... a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2: 24). Here we have the first reference to biblically ordered sexuality. These limitations are further elaborated later on and include prohibitions against adultery and homosexuality.

It is important to note that sexual union is ordained by God and thus deemed as good. This includes all the constituents that make this union possible including sexual desire. However, like all human desire, sexual desire must be directed into appropriate channels and expressions. St. Maximus the Confessor told us: "Scripture does not forbid anything which God has given to us for our use; but condemns immoderation and thoughtless behavior. For instance is not forbidden to eat or beget children ... but it does forbid us to fornicate ... " (Philokalia II).

Further, for St. Maximus (and indeed the entire Christian moral tradition) marriage and sexual activity are united. The Holy Church Father continued:

... we are required by the commandments to love God and our neighbor, to love our enemies, not to commit adultery ... when we transgress these commandments we are condemned. But we are not commanded to live as virgins, to abstain from marriage ... These are of the nature of gifts, so that if through weakness we are unable to fulfill some of the commandments, we may by these gifts propitiate our blessed Master (Philokalia II).

St. Maximus' comments about virginity and abstention from marriage presuppose that marriage consists of male and female. Unmarried people are expected to remain chaste, to refrain from sexual activity. St. Maximus sees marriage as more than a concession to weakness, that is, marriage was not instituted because people are might be unable to restrain from sexual activity outside of marital union, but also for the procreation of the human race and thus a fulfillment of the commandment that mankind should create new life. In other words, both states of being - married or single - are ordained and thus blessed by God.

--
Archpriest David Moser
St Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Homilies: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/propoved/
Ask Fr David: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frd_private/

Andreas Moran

23-11-2006, 08:49 AM

Dear Fr David,

Your blessing. Thank you for your post. Your explanation of Trinitarian love reminded me of the way Bishop Eirenaios (who brought me to the Church and taught me so much) first explained the Holy Trinity to me (bearing in mind I knew nothing about the Christian faith before becoming Orthodox). God, he said, exists as three Persons because He is love. If He were one Person (as the Jews and Muslims say), that love would be self-regarding and so not love. Love moves dynamically amongst the Three Persons and then from Them into Creation. We receive this love and are expected to pass it on so that the dynamic of love continues. If we receive God's love but do not pass it on to our neighbour, we fail to love as God commands us.

Secondly, I wonder if you agree that what is said about marriage applies equally to a second marriage after the death of the first spouse? Some time after the repose of my first wife, I discussed my future with Fr Zacharias. He decided I should marry since the monastic life was not for me ('you wouldn't make a very good monk') and a life of isolation was not good for me. (Also, my first wife gave me her blessing to marry.) He agreed that if Adam was in need of a companion in Paradise, how much more does someone have need of one in this fallen world, unless there is a clear call to monasticism.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Father David Moser

23-11-2006, 05:30 PM

Your blessing. Thank you for your post. Your explanation of Trinitarian love

You're welcome, however, I must of course reitrate that the content of the post was not mine - I was simply quoting an article. The "explanation" is that of the author of the article, Fr George Morelli

Secondly, I wonder if you agree that what is said about marriage applies equally to a second marriage after the death of the first spouse? ... if Adam was in need of a companion in Paradise, how much more does someone have need of one in this fallen world, unless there is a clear call to monasticism.

Actually I believe that there are three ways of living - virginity, monasticism and marriage. I do believe that a clear calling either to monasticism or marriage is needed in order to embark upon either path. We are born into the world as virgins, neither monastic nor married, and until our Lord steers us away from that state and path, we should maintain it with all our vigor as Orthodox Christians. Now let me also say that it seems that the vast majority are indeed called to either marriage or monasticism, but that is not necessarily universal. Nor does that imply that those living in virginity in the world should be hermits without companions - its just a matter of what kind of companions you choose (choose wisely!) Monastic life is more than just the calling to live in community - it is the angelic life and not all are called to it. Marriage also is more than just living together, but it is a life of martyrdom, sacrificing yourself on the cross of your spouse and not all are called to it. The sexual life is secondary (imo) to the whole life of the marriage (and while not exclusively for the begetting of children, that is one of the reasons for it) Sexual interaction is form of bonding and communication in marriage that is uniquely necessary to the lives and calling of the husband and wife. After the death of one spouse, it is not necessary for one to remarry or to enter monastic life, however, neither is it forbidden. One must undertake that decision just as one undertakes every other decision - is it for the salvation of the soul?

I'm in a bit of a rush (today being American Thanksgiving so we have our regular molieben and akathist in about a half hour and then the kids are coming home and besides it's my birthday to boot) so I might be a little less clear than normal.

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

23-11-2006, 05:36 PM

Many thanks, Father - Happy Thanksgiving (if that's what you say) and 'many years' for your birthday!

Andreas.

Audrey

24-11-2006, 03:17 AM

Andrea-

Thanks for your encouragement, and I'm glad this discussion is picking back up! I knew it had ended months ago but I just joined Monachos and was very interested in this subject.

Sincerely Audrey

Audrey

24-11-2006, 03:22 AM

Actually I believe that there are three ways of living - virginity, monasticism and marriage. I do believe that a clear calling either to monasticism or marriage is needed in order to embark upon either path. We are born into the world as virgins, neither monastic nor married, and until our Lord steers us away from that state and path, we should maintain it with all our vigor as Orthodox Christians.
Fr David Moser

Fr David:
Thanks for posting that article excerpt; it was very helpful. Also I have a question about your quote above: how are we to know to what we are called? Do we need to have an 'experience' of being called, in your opinion? Or are our callings, whether to marriage or monasticism, based more on knowledge of ourselves and our own needs? Thanks and happy birthday!

Audrey

Audrey

24-11-2006, 03:25 AM

Paul-

One of my very good friends has recently suggested S&LAA to me (sex and love addicts anonymous) and your posting was one more encouragement to look into this program. I know I need the community aspect of healing and accountability. Thanks for your sound advice! I also very much agree that there are many resources God uses for our healing, largely involving community and relationships. Thanks again

Paul Cowan

24-11-2006, 05:40 AM

God Grant you Many years Father.

Happy Birthday.

Paul

Andreas Moran

24-11-2006, 11:25 AM

Dear All,

I wonder if any of you on this thread agree with the following thoughts? I'm not a psychologist, but I suppose there must be a psychological reason rather than a physical one for a person to feel more strongly than others a need for physical contact with another person. Suppose a person had a difficult childhood with a lack of love from either or both parents (I'm not talking about abuse) and consequently a feeling of isolation and loneliness. That person may develop a deep psychological need for love which he or she thinks (mistakenly, of course) could be satisfied by sexual contact. So that person may (but I'm not suggesting in every case) seek such consolation directly or, if that is not possible, vicariously (through autoeroticism and, perhaps, pornography). Like other passions, such a disposition is something which the Christian has to confront and struggle with. The struggle is intense because this passion justifies itself by its appeal that the sexual urge is natural. The Christian may well recognise this disposition and know that true consolation and love are to be found in God, yet the struggle continues because the psychological roots go so deep. The essential thing is not to despair. Some time ago, I was reading about Elder Joseph the Hesychast. He was pure, and the Lord said to him, do you want to fight in the front line? The Elder said he did, and was then subjected to an onslaught of carnal temptation. One thinks also of St Mary of Egypt whose struggle did not cease when she entered the desert. Those who suffer in this way might think they too have been called to fight in the front line, though they didn't volunteer as the Elder had done. Even if the struggle sees falls, God surely looks at the effort made.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Father David Moser

24-11-2006, 04:58 PM

how are we to know to what we are called? Do we need to have an 'experience' of being called, in your opinion? Or are our callings, whether to marriage or monasticism, based more on knowledge of ourselves and our own needs?

This question is essentially, "how do I know what is God's will in my life?" and the answer that I usually give runs something like this. Live each day as God gives it. Do not seek out this or that experience or possession or condition, but rather accept all that God gives you each day. It is certainly possible that the events of a particular day or set of days may suggest a future course of action requiring some kind of "plan" or "goal" and it is certainly not a bad thing to make such a plan or set such a goal. If however, God's provision leads you away from your plan then do not hesitate to let it go and follow His lead instead.

Relating the above to marriage and monsticism, we can then say that it is good not to seek out one state or the other but to continue living the life that God has provided for you. It may be that you find that you are drawn towards a certain person with whom to share your life and thus to marriage, or perhaps you find that you are steered more and more to the monastic life. At some point that change in your way of life will come to the point of submitting to the "judgement" of the Church - either in requesting the sacrament of Holy Matrimony or in requesting the blessing of monastic tonsure. Either way, you submit your will to the will of God revealed through the Chuch at this point and your "mode" of life changes according to the blessing and grace of the Holy Spirit.

You don't have to seek some "sign" or "experience" or some little wobble in your heart - rather you simply accept what God gives.

If, otoh, you decide for example that you must get married and then go out trying to find your spouse on your own, it is not unlikely that the evil one, seeing even in your good intent the seeds of an exploitable passion will endeavor to seemingly give you what you desire but at the same time start to stroke that passion so that it becomes a weak spot in your spiritual life. By the same token if you go around looking for "a sign" it is not unlikely that the evil one will be glad to give you a "sign" - but one that will give him an advantage in your spiritual life.

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

24-11-2006, 07:05 PM

You know what the Russians say - 'if you have no plans, nothing can go wrong'.

Audrey

25-11-2006, 05:15 AM

Fr. David:

Thanks for your words. I can really see how much sense it makes to accept what God gives each day instead of trying to plan my own life out. That leads to another question I've been pondering lately. When I entered Orthodoxy I was relieved by the fact that it was a refuge from Calvinism and from believing that God planned and "gave" us all of our circumstances. After all, who wants to believe that all the evil things that happen are from the hand of God?
However I am beginning to realize I still hear a lot of language from Orthodox sources that say all things come from the hand of God. I am confused about this. For example by not going out and trying to find a spouse, is that assuming that God controls all? Is it wise to be "passive" or is it wise to decide what I think might be a good idea and implement that plan, enacting my creative power given me by God?

I really appreciate your time.

Sincerely
Audrey

acedaroflebanon

28-11-2006, 02:24 AM

I was speaking with a friend I have recently made from Texas (a student who is attending school in Arkansas and comes to our church on the weekends because it is closer than driving all the way to Texas) He is young as am I and my wife and his girlfriend and he were recently chrismated some months ago. They are planning to get married soon. We were both expressing our attraction to the perseverance of monastics and that we would probably become monks if we ever lost our wives to death. He said that the attraction to monastic life is not necessarily a bad thing, but that the enemy can place that attraction before us to tempt us to leave the life God has already provided. So, I guess just hear the words of the Blessed Apostle : "remain in the state in which you were called."

Audrey

29-12-2006, 01:21 AM

Tanya Hoadley

29-12-2006, 06:04 PM

Along the lines of the topic of this thread, I recently read in one of my devotional books by a Monk of the Eastern Church the statement that we are to "renounce bodily pleasures". He didn't qualify this statement and so it disturbed me and I began to feel very angry. I am totally fine with statements such as we are not to live for bodily pleasures or be slaves to bodily pleasures. I totally agree with that. But a simply statement such as "renounce bodily pleasures" that is made without qualifications is misleading, is it not? In order to "renounce bodily pleasures" one should never eat, because eating is often pleasurable, and one should not be married, because sexual expression is pleasurable.
Could someone please explain to me what he might have meant by that statement, and why someone would make a statement like that. Such an unqualified statement could cause so much confusion to many people, Christian and non. This statement was made in the book Year of Grace of the Lord in the chapter about Epiphany when he is speaking of the spiritual meaning of gold, frankincense, and myrr. Otherwise, I LOVE everything I've read by the Monk of the Eastern Church.
Thanks for your thoughts.

Dear Audrey,

Perhaps it is in how "renounce" is defined that we can see how "renounce bodily pleasures" may be interpreted.

One definition of renounce is "to give up" From your post, I gather that this is the definition you used in your reading.

Renounce is also defined as "to refuse to follow or obey". If we use the second definition in reading "renounce bodily pleasures", we get a much different interpretation.

So, your statement of agreement that we are not to be slaves to bodily pleasures, I believe agrees with "refuse to follow or obey" bodily pleasures.

Hope this is of help,

In Christ,
Tanya

acedaroflebanon

10-01-2007, 07:39 PM

Andrew

10-01-2007, 08:22 PM

I think with this sensitive topic, lust, sexual passion, and such, we have to remember to put Christ first, not ourselves. Sometimes we (I especially) get so caught up in our own sinfulness that we lose sight of the physician himself, Christ. He is eternally present, whether in prayer, at Church, in the bedroom, at work, everywhere. We must allow him to come into whatever we do and take part in his Grace. So, in sex between married couples, I guess we can use this part of the human condition, sexual desire and need, to glorify Our Lord. It can be an act of kenosis, fully centered on the spouse instead of the self, for the possibility of bringing about more little godbearers into the world, or to help and love our wives/husbands. It is not a "good" or "bad" thing, it just is; it is a part of who we are as humans, and we have a choice to use it for the Kingdom of God, or use it to our own detriment in an egoistic way. The Church is a hospital for the human person, and has many ways of recentering human sexuality away from the self and towards health in Christ. Elder Epiphanios had a lot of good counsel on this matter, one of which was for Orthodox men to have big families, for the purpose of sacrificial love.

I think Archbishop Lazar has some useful advice here too... http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/meleti/love.htm

And when it comes to physical lust itself, the Theotokos is always willing to help us. Her loving motherly presence truly quiets the passions and drives away the demons. O Theotokos Virgin, rejoice O Mary Full of Grace...

Owen Jones

12-01-2007, 03:10 AM

There is a context to everything, Audrey. If one reads the Philokalia only for its very esoteric pronouncements, you will be carried away. There are many passages about the deiform soul, about divinization or deification. But if you read closely, and enough of the text, it is always qualified. And a close reading of the various texts will reveal that the true message of the Philokalia is to obey the commandments. So I think if you read further, you will find all kinds of explanations, analogies, examples that qualify the blanket statement.

Moses Anthony

03-05-2007, 06:00 AM

Having spent a bit of time in the Charismatic movement before being finally taken by Orthodoxy, I find an intersting issue with all of this. I don't know how many of you are familiar with "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren, but, I think that the kind of concepts presented there are at the forefront of the misunderstanding about "calling."

I know that I used to believe that whatever I had been talented with was somehow my calling, thus, I thought my calling was to be a worship leader at a Charismatic Church "I play guitar and everything else that could be considered a "rock" intrument). In other words, I was looking at my own personal dreams and attempting to force God's call upon them.

I now see that this is inappropriate. What we must do, IMHO, is to simply view whatever we currently do as what we are called to. Live each day and do everything to the Glory of God. Aren't we called to glorify God in every one of our actions? I think that if we truly "seek first the kingdom of heaven" in this way, and with the help of our guiding spiritual elder, we will not miss our "calling."

Also, I wish to thank God for St. Mary of Egypt, whose prayers have helped me to begin overcoming my sexual passions. (which was the original topic here)

Before I was ever aware of the existence of Orthodoxy, I was often tugged by the "heartstrings" at the idea of living a solitary life. But alas, I got married in college,and started a family. However; but alas, is not the end, but the beginning of the rest of the story.

Conversion, chrismation and reception into the Orthodox faith did not kill either my passions, or interest in the ascetic life. So when my new priest asked for a list of those who were interested in the ascetic life, although not called to monasticism, I signed up. I should tell you the name of my parish; it is St. Benedict of Nursia Orthodox Church. Our small group was told to make a personal Prayer Rule (along suggested lines), and to keep it do-able. After a trial period to see if this was an acceptable lifestyle, we would then petition to be Oblates of St. Benedict, which would be for the rest of our lives. Fr. told me that many of the Fathers of the Early Church, felt that the married life was the first field of the monastic/ascetic struggle

Even though as a requirement our Personal Rules are "do-able", I've not kept all of the requirements as faithfully as I should! The point I've learned is that whatever the circumstance of living , discipline is extremely important! The monastic habit does not guaranty that the monk or nun will not endure temptations and trials. But, in those times that a fall does occur the mysteries of confession, prayer, and repentance are the ointment and stitches for the wounds of our failures in spiritual discipline. We fall down, we get up. WE fall down, we get up; until by the grace of God, our falls become less and less frequent. And we cry out," Oh God, what is wrong with me? What do you want me to do?

A Protestant preacher said once,"...We're so busy looking for God in the supernatural, that we totally miss it when God supernaturally acts in the natural." In the context of this thread, and to the point: We have readily available to us in the form of the Holy Scriptures, all that God requires of us for the purpose of holy living! O.K. but the interpretation of the directives? Again, the Holy Scriptures, and in particular The Shama. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind...." The point being is as I am wont to say at times, THINK! Being a Christian does not negate our responsibility to think, nor does it mean that answers have to come to us as some divine orchestration. "..prove what the will of God is..." One does not go to the autobhan or Sebring to test whether or not they have a car. The Scriptures are to us the "will of God" We go about each day living normally, trusting God to so direct our lives as would please Him., and therefore we prove "...what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect..." An aside in this is that we're unconsciously admitting that God Almighty speaks to us; and that, we're capable of hearing what He says. the onus is then on us the recognize the voice of God however, and whenever He speaks to us. The most easily and ready method recognized by practically the whole world, Holy Scripture (the message between the lines is this: The entire Canon of Scripture is the result of God using human vehicles. Therefore we cannot dismiss humans as being how God will speak to us. But alas, I fear I begin to wax wordy.

the sinful and unworhty servant
moses

Steve Lewis

12-05-2007, 03:39 PM

In my struggles with lust I've found the more esoteric writings to be the least helpful. I read good stuff, think I've gained knowledge, and fall flat on my face.

Steve

Moses Anthony

13-05-2007, 04:52 AM

In my struggles with lust I've found the more esoteric writings to be the least helpful. I read good stuff, think I've gained knowledge, and fall flat on my face.

Steve

The Apostle Paul wrote "...where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty..." The "down to earth" interpretation isn't as curt. When by whatever means God shows us something, the normal response is to get excited, and then of we go in new found faith. However; since we're what we are, flesh and blood, the normal tendency is that after a while, our progress slips back into the "...perfected by the flesh ..." mode. And it hits us, I'm right back where I started from! And we're reminded again of the Apostle's words, "...where the Spirit of the Lord is...." AARGHHH!

I know that when I'm hungry I have a greater tendency to be "short, irritable", an just plain "angry" with people. Knowing myself that little has helped a bit in the patience, kindness, and humility departments.
I heard a man once who had a problem with lustful passions , say that as a result of his problem he doesn't go by the magazine rack at stores. Nothing esoteric about that, but is very practical. Sort of along the lines of not watching certain programs on the 'idiot box', because you know what type of content they have. But even here the Apostles' words while sounding esoteric, are in truth quite practical, "...I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me..."The "trick" is that when we think we've 'got it' ( and we may actually have), to not rely on our own understanding or strength for "...where the Spirit of the lord is, there is liberty..."

The opposite swing of the guilt pendulum poses a problem also, and we despair of our own intellect; forgetting that part of the Greatest Commandment says "...love the Lord thy God with...all thy mind...." The "trick" is the achievement of balance of using the mind , while not relying on our intellect. But then neither should we 'dis' the esoteric simply because it is esoteric. "...But put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh in regards to it's lusts...."

Joseph, before Potiphar's wife ever propositioned him, made the decision that he would not yield to temptation. Jesus knowing His time was near, set His face towards Jerusalem. The 'helmet of salvation' Paul admonished Christians to put on as spiritual armor, would prohibit glancing to the side. God has provided what we need for victory; we however, have to make the decision to use the esoteric heavenly provisions in an earthly and practical manner.

Steve Lewis

14-05-2007, 05:21 AM

I don't mean to dis esoteric writings. For me, it requires a good spiritual father (or whatever the proper term would be) and a support group. Not just the literature. That's not the literature's fault. That's just me.

Steve

But then neither should we 'dis' the esoteric simply because it is esoteric. "...But put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh in regards to it's lusts...."

Paul Cowan

15-05-2007, 03:53 AM

The church is the hospital. The Body and Blood are its medicine. A good 12 step program is the band-aid keeping the wound from being more infected.

God made doctors smarter than most. He made medicines for us to discover to heal with. He made 12 step programs for those of us who need more than the average bear to keep the flesh from becoming unruly.

All 3 are needed and more for us to pick our selves up out of the mire and present ourselves to Him in a wedding garment. Thank God for the tools He gives us to live by.

Paul

Nina

15-05-2007, 04:56 AM

I don't mean to dis esoteric writings. For me, it requires a good spiritual father (or whatever the proper term would be) and a support group. Not just the literature. That's not the literature's fault. That's just me.

Steve

The Fathers emphasize the crucial role of the spiritual father in our progress towards Christian praxis, salvation and theosis. Also they urge us to identify and be aware of our weaknesses and to exercise self-reproach. From what you write in your posts, it seems that you posses what Fathers advise in this case.

Archbishop Lazar

24-05-2007, 02:46 AM

It is well to have a spiritual mentor, though not always possible. One thing needed is to learn to distinguish between morality and moralism. Morality can become a heresy because it can become a substitute for a life in Christ. Think about this carefully before reacting. A set of theoretical rules lived perfectly externally (remember Christ"s critique of the righteous pharisees) can become a substitute for the struggle to actually transform the inner person. From an Orthodox perspective, true morality proceeds from the heart, and this requires a struggle for an inner transfomation, not just an external, formal confomity to a set of theoretical rules. Moralism is primarily a repressive conformity rather than a growth and development in a life in Christ. Theosis is a both a process and a gift. We will all sin much in this life, and find that true repentance is also both a process and a gift, and that it is one of life's sweetest mysteries and most potent healers.

Andreas Moran

07-06-2007, 02:14 AM

Vladyka Lazar, your blessing,

I was much taken with your post which articulated something of the problem of those in the west. When I read your post to my wife (and since you have come to Monachos recently, I should explain that she is from Moscow), she straightaway said, 'ah! Berdyaev!' Would you acknowledge any influence of Berdyaev in your thinking?

Paul Cowan

07-06-2007, 06:02 AM

AH! Berdyaev is a person.

http://www.berdyaev.com/

I thought perhaps it was a particular type of alcohol or some such.

Sorry, this is in jest. It's amazing to keep up with the posts on Monachos it is necessary to have access a good online encyclopedia.

Andreas Moran

07-06-2007, 05:58 PM

Well, Paul, I just pick my wife's brains! Actually, though she admires much of what people like Berdyaev, Soloviev, Fedotov, et al, write she is certainly no uncritical admirer of them since they sometimes fell into western, liberal ways.

Archbishop Lazar

08-06-2007, 08:31 AM

I would not acknowledge Berdyaev's influence in this. The primary influcences on my theological thought, aside from direct readings of the holy fathers are Metropolitan Saint Antony Khrapovitsky, my first teacher Fr. John Romanides, Fr Michael Azkoul, the Lebanese theologian and Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros. I have read Berdyaev and Soloviev, and do value some of their expressions of Orthodox Christian Existentialism, but as observed by your wife, they crossed the border into a non-Orthodox way of thinking at times, and some of that school fell into Sophianstvo as well. Orthodox Christian theology is naturally Existential, however, so one is bound to find find some similarities across other lines. St Gregory Palamas was one of the great Existential teachers in the Church. The great non-Orthodox Christian and Jewish Existentialists have passages that would resonate with us as well. Even the atheist or agnostic writers such as Camus, when they touch upon responsibility, purpose and meaning in life, can resonate with us. The difference is that they do not arrive at the real answer, which is Christ Jesus our Saviour. The opposite of the Existenial mode is called Scholasticism, and many Russian writers of the 17-20 Centuries fell into one or another degree of that. The late Patriarch Serge Starogorodsky, a student of Metropolitan St. Antony Khrapvitsky wrote his Masters Thesis against the Scholastic doctrine of redemption, for example, because Scholasticism had become so powerful in Russia during the preceding centuries. I realise that this is much more of an answer than you wanted, but when one gets started........

Archbishop Lazar

08-06-2007, 08:36 AM

By the way, Berdyaev observes in Freedom and Slavery the dangers of Christianity being reduced to an ideology. I would say that when it was reduced to a "religion" it began to lose its true power in transmitting the Gospel to the world. Romanides states it this way: "Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodox is its cure." Think about it for a while.

Byron Jack Gaist

08-06-2007, 01:29 PM

This is a most interesting thread. I find it especially interesting that queries about sex lead eventually to discussions about the Will of God, our vocation, the Fall and creation / the environment, and all those other aspects of Church doctrine. Eros seems to me to be at the centre of much (perhaps to me it would!).

One of the things I'd like clarified: I thought one of our differences from Roman Catholic teaching was precisely in our thesis that procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage. We certainly think it's extremely important, but we also believe that sex in marriage serves a unitive function for the couple - or don't we?

I've been away from monachos for a while, so this brief post is also an opportunity to say 'hi'!

In Christ
Byron

Andreas Moran

08-06-2007, 05:42 PM

Vladyka - I'll pass on your messages to Lydia. I think she said once that the trouble Berdyaev et al got themselves into was that they wanted to break with the excessive rigidity of the Russian Church as it had tended to become before the Revolution but as usually happens they went too far and advocated too much freedom.

Archbishop Lazar

09-06-2007, 02:15 AM

Byron,
You are correct that marriage provides for undefiled and pure sexual relations for other purposes than pro-creation. The confusion arises largely from those who have been under some Gnostic influence or the influence of the Western philosopher Augustine of Hippo (for 1600 years Augustine has been considered neither a saint nor a Church Father by the Orthodox Church. He was insinuated into the calendar only in the mid-20th century by a school of radical moralists, some of whom were pro-Calvinist). Augustine taught that marriage is a venial sin, cloaked in a guise of respectablity for the sake of pro-creation.

Father David Moser

10-06-2007, 06:13 AM

re: Berdyaev et al.

Fr Sophrony (Sakharov) was also influenced by the same "Paris" group as Berdyaev et al. and eventually abandoned France for Mt Athos where he encountered the Elder St Silouan. I think it is fascinating to contrast where those different paths from the same beginnings led. The book - I Love Therefore I Am about the teachings of Fr Sophrony by his relative Fr Nicholas Sakharov is interesting in this respect.

Fr David Moser

Byron Jack Gaist

10-06-2007, 05:00 PM

Thank you, Archbishop Lazar, for responding to my query. I have a copy of your book "The Mystery of Gender and Human Sexuality" (Synaxis Press), which I should now read as it's been sitting on my bookshelf, unread, together with so many other good books which I have the bad habit of casting cursory glances at, but not really studying. I feel each book should be studied - not just read - and maybe that's why I'm a slow and disorganised reader. Anyway, if I recall a little bit of what you wrote in this book, your account of gender is that it has a prophetic role and meaning in human life; hence also marriage and marital relations aren't just an unfortunate result of the Fall (please correct me if this is not what you were saying, I only recall the book's contents vaguely as I said).

An OCA leaflet I have describes marital sexual relations thus:

The union of man and woman in marriage, fully actualized in sexual union, images the union of love between God and his people which is fulfilled in the union of Christ and the church. This union of love is unique, unending, all-embracing, totally committed and unconditionally faithful. It is sacred, divine, holy and Godlike. As such, it is not irresponsible or promiscuous[...]It certainly cannot be enacted merely for carnal pleasure and sensual gratification. It is, on the contrary, an act of holy communion(ibid) comparable to the act of communion in Christ's body and blood at the Church's divine liturgy. For like eucharistic communion, the act of sexual love in marriage is a sacramental(ibid) act. It is given by God for the good of his people, for their fulfilment, joy and eternal salvation in his kingdom which is to come.

The notion that Adam and Eve, despite being created as male and female and told to go forth and multiply even before the Fall, actually procreated in what may have been a mystical, non-physical manner, may have its sound theological basis; as an amateur at theology and a sinner I can hardly argue. Nevertheless, I feel many Christians, or those who like myself spend even a little time thinking about sin, salvation, the afterlife and whether it all means anything at all, would benefit from reading an explicit and well thought-out understanding of the right attitude to matter and the senses, which surely the Orthodox Church, in its beaultiful services with incense, chant, icons etc. does not regard as evil. Are the body and the senses, even in their fallen condition, really incapable of (fore)tasting heaven? Didn't St John Chrysostom think otherwise? If a married man and wife who love one another enjoy their physical union, may it not, together with the fallen passions, nevertheless contain an intimation of the transcendent? Can heavenly bliss even begin to be imagined, if earthly bliss is condemned? What then is the role of art, music, beautiful landscapes, love of nature in our lives?

In Chist
Byron

Archbishop Lazar

11-06-2007, 02:58 AM

Let me know if the book answers questons for you, Byron, and also let me know if there are specific questions which it leaves unanswered that we might cover in the next edition.

Maria Mahoney

12-06-2007, 01:41 PM

First of all we need to deeply know and feel our limitations. We are unable to overcome our passions by our own will. Divine Grace is needed to transform us from the inside out. With deepest humility, we need to ask for the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Then we need to co-operate with the Holy Spirit in our transformation. Remove any obstacles which are in our power to remove that would cause temptation. And begin to cultivate a holy life by various means: Mneme Theou (Remembrance of God), prayer, frequent Confession and Communion, attendance at church, study and reading of the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, reading of the Lives of the Saints, fasting, labour, vigils, solitude, withdrawal from the world, control of the senses, re-interpretation of the material world into the spiritual, keeping of the Commandments and doing the will of God, practice of Virtues, practice in control over assent, control of thoughts, and self-control, development of discrimination (diakrisis), & watchfulness (nepsis).

Next, we need to surrender our lives to God and trust in His love and Divine Providence for us. We know that He can and will heal us if we turn to Him.

Then we have to make a choice... a very conscious and deliberate choice to turn our life and will over to God. This will entail abandoning oneself, self-emptying (kenosis). And the beginning of Divine eros... an intense longing for God!

Every minute from then on, we will need to examine our self, watch our self, our thoughts and our actions...continually taking inventory of our self... looking to see where we stand, or fall. Try to understand why we fall, and try to discover what it is we need to be doing now... what we need to learn. We need to accept responsibility for our part.

FREQUENT Confession (Sacramental) is needed! We fall down, we get back up,......
If possible, it is very helpful if there is someone to talk to daily about our struggles.

Of course, we need patience with our self and we need to know that there is a continual transformation occurring. We need to be ready to accept God's mercy and healing grace into our lives. We need to grieve the harm we have caused and repent continually. We need to be open to, and willing to repair as much as we can. Forgive yourself. Let go.

We need to continually be thankful to God and seek His glory.

We need to understand that this is a cyclical process.

Moses Anthony

13-06-2007, 01:55 AM

Effie Ganatsios

18-06-2007, 11:23 AM

Byron wrote :

[ Can heavenly bliss even begin to be imagined, if earthly bliss is condemned? What then is the role of art, music, beautiful landscapes, love of nature in our lives?

In Chist
Byron[/QUOTE]

I see God in nature and its beauty. Is this wrong? My husband feels the same way and believes that God created nature for man. Everything man needs is in nature i.e. medicine etc.

Read this athakist - I read it frequently and its beauty never fails to move me :

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8228.asp

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-06-2007, 04:12 PM

Effie wrote:

I see God in nature and its beauty. Is this wrong? My husband feels the same way and believes that God created nature for man. Everything man needs is in nature i.e. medicine etc.

No, as long as we remember that nature is God's creation and that it's beauty actually corresponds to its heavenly archetype on which we must set our mind & hope.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Effie Ganatsios

18-06-2007, 04:39 PM

Yes. Thank you Fr. Raphael.

God, the creator, first and last.

Otherwise we would be worshippers of nature (as many people have been in the past or are now) without worshipping the creator of nature.

My husband - who is a deeply religious person, although not very vocal about his faith - also frequently says that God creates and man destroys, in reference to nature.

I suppose that's why he loves gardening so much - he loves to plant things and watch them grow.

Thank you Fr. Raphael, you say so much and use so few words - wish I had that ability.

Effie

Herman Blaydoe

18-06-2007, 07:05 PM

Is it even possible for someone to be a gardener and an atheist? :D (did the smileys get turned off or something?)

Effie Ganatsios

19-06-2007, 06:39 AM

I don't think it's possible to be an atheist when you love gardening.

You might start out that way but working with plants, watching them grow, discovering the complex relationships between plants, birds, insects, etc. would force even the most stubborn person to start wondering how in the world all this came about.

Effie

God might have created a few less swallows though - especially when they congregate on my front verandah and while chattering away don't notice that they are using the verandah marble as a toilet!!!

John Charmley

19-06-2007, 09:51 AM

Dear Effie,

Otherwise we would be worshippers of nature (as many people have been in the past or are now) without worshipping the creator of nature.

A priest once told me that our love for nature can be the first stirrings of the heart that helps to bring us to the worship of Him who created it - and us - a nice thought that I want to pass on here.

In Christ,

John

Maria Mahoney

20-06-2007, 10:56 PM

St. Theophan the Recluse gave wonderful directions on how to bring about inner transformation:

"Build your temple to the Lord so as to always have Him in you. Clear a spot in your heart for the erection of the spiritual temple. This clearing is accomplished through repentance: uprooting and realizing one's own sins. On the cleared spot, dig and lay a foundation comprised of faith and a resolve to live according to faith. Having laid such a foundation, raise the building, place stone upon stone, and bind them with the necessary elements, and direct everything according to the proposed plan and dimensions. The stones are various virtues which are practiced when and where opportunities present themselves...meekness, continence, patience, obedience, mercy, love of labor...these virtues, one added to another, are conducive to the growth of the structure of the inward temple. The binding cement is, on the one hand, energy coming from the sacraments of grace, without which everything of ours remains dry, unbinding, unstable; and on the other hand...love. The roof will consist of deep humility. What remains is to crown the building and raise a cross upon it. These two tasks will be accomplished by one action: devotion to the will of God, which is like a dome of good deeds, of self-denial and cross-bearing where upon our egotism is finally crucified. And thus you have a temple. But you are still outside this inward temple. You must enter within it, adorn it, sanctify and cense it, in order to worthily perform there holy sacraments, to offer oblations pleasing to God. For the Lord wants not only to be in you, but also to abide with you. now adorn the inward temple of the heart with good thoughts composed of deep conviction in the truths of faith and by related thoughts and dispositions. With thoughts about the Tri-Hypostatic God, His boundless perfection, creation, and providence, about the mystery of redemption and the whole economy of our salvation; about the future harmony of all. The sanctification of this temple is caused by the unwavering, constant beholding of God the Omnipotent. These movements towards Him, the most sweet one, are the incense of the prayer of the heart, which rises like the morning mist or aromatic smoke to God. In such a way, within the fragrant temple of the heart there will also be performed spiritual sacrifice pleasing to God. This consists of offering to Him an awareness of your self-determination and freedom, expressed through painful falling before Him with a contrite and humble heart."

In Christ,
Maria

Effie Ganatsios

21-06-2007, 05:57 AM

How beautiful, Maria.

This needs to be read carefully and studied, which I intend to do.

Thank you for posting it. I have read a lot of this saint's writings but I have never come across this.

Effie

Maria Mahoney

22-06-2007, 02:24 PM

The quote above is from (page # unknown, sorry):

Kindling the Divine Spark by St. Theophan the Recluse. This was an excellent book BTW!

In Christ,
Maria

Owen Jones

23-06-2007, 01:11 AM

back to the original theme of this thread, perhaps this will be helpful, taken from today's thought from the Fathers:

If we want to set our lives aright and find peace, it is not the tolerant attitude of others that will do it for us. It will come about, rather, by our learning how to show them compassion. If we try to avoid this hard struggle of compassion by preferring a withdrawn and solitary life, we will simply drag our unhealed obsessions into solitude with us. We might well have hidden them; we certainly will not have eliminated them. If we do not seek liberation from our obsessions, then becoming more withdrawn and less social may even make us more blind to them, since it can mask them.
- St John Cassian

Byron Jack Gaist

25-06-2007, 07:15 AM

I am struck by how difficult Christian spirituality is. One must crucify one's desires and ego, yet at the same time remain open to others. This life of devotion has to be lived in the light of a spiritual experience which for some may consist of spectacular visions, but for most - I gather - little more than a few gentle intimations of God's presence, which could just as well be demolished and denied by "reason".

How does one do that? How does one devote one's entire being to a God who - for all intents and purposes and as perceived through our limited senses - may or may not be there?

Then, too - what becomes of the senses? We've spoken about not worshipping the creation in neglect of its Creator, but what does this mean? It could be just a turn of phrase. We can talk about "Archetype", but what does this mean to my eyes, my ears, my skin? Am I to worship an idea in my head?

Tough questions, but I'm hoping some here may be able to offer some pointers...

In Christ
Byron

Effie Ganatsios

25-06-2007, 10:15 AM

Byron, can I just write down a few thoughts on a couple of the subjects you mentioned in your last post.

"This life of devotion has to be lived in the light of a spiritual experience which for some may consist of spectacular visions, but for most - I gather - little more than a few gentle intimations of God's presence, which could just as well be demolished and denied by "reason"."

What is the opposite of believing. It's not "not believing" but it's believing that mankind and the world he lives in was all some kind of accident. We just happened, the miracles of natures just happened, etc.

Spectacular visions are for the very, very few, and even then they are viewed with extreme caution because they might be just a manifestation of an obsessed mind.

Man has always sought God, even before the birth of Jesus Christ. Some might say that it might just be man's fear of death that makes him believe that there is another world after this one.

Scientists tell us that man uses only about 10% of his brain - the brain I believe was created by a loving God. Can you imagine the wonders that are in store for man when he is in a position to use more of his brain?

Didn't Christ tell us that blessed are those that believe without seeing...

If I remember correctly we have discussed conscience in an older thread but I would like to say that the fact that we have a conscience that lets us know what is right and wrong proves that we aren't just physical beings.

We might fool everyone but in our hearts we know when we have done wrong.

Byron, you write :

“Then, too - what becomes of the senses? We've spoken about not worshipping the creation in neglect of its Creator, but what does this mean? It could be just a turn of phrase. We can talk about "Archetype", but what does this mean to my eyes, my ears, my skin? Am I to worship an idea in my head?”

I think Father Raphael explained it perfectly. It’s not just a turn of phrase. We worship God, first and foremost – Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me”. A very clear instruction. There are many idols that people worship : Money, ambition, our loved one, nature, ourselves..... the list is endless.

Everything good and pure is a manifestation of God’s nature. Because we love God and strive to become like Him, we have a deeper appreciation of his gifts – has man ever created the beauty of some sunsets, or flowers, or even the human body? A kind word, an understanding friend, someone who is there when we need them – aren’t they all tiny “drops” of God. Beauty makes this world liveable. Without beauty we would probably all slowly sink into depression - which, by the way is apparently increasing. Beauty though is in the eye of the beholder and I'm not referring to lovers but to all kinds of beauty, especially the beauty of the soul that shines out of the eyes of some good people.

Christ was perfect. Could we have a more shining example – a more perfect role model. When I read Christ’s words I see an opening – the possibility of becoming a better person and positively affecting those around me. This is usually an unobtainable goal but just by trying, sometimes, you do take a small step.

I know my reasoning is full of huge, huge.... holes, but I tried to just think of what I believe and put it down in writing. I didn’t even try to connect the thoughts. It was written honestly and I hope, Byron, you understand that in my random reasoning above, the “you” I used has nothing to do with you – Byron - but is used to “represent unspecified persons or people in general”.

Does any of the above help you in any way? I hope others more knowledgeable than I will make things clearer to us all.

Effie

Moses Anthony

26-06-2007, 04:59 AM

I am struck by how difficult Christian spirituality is. One must crucify one's desires and ego, yet at the same time remain open to others.

How does one do that? How does one devote one's entire being to a God who - for all intents and purposes and as perceived through our limited senses - may or may not be there?

Then, too - what becomes of the senses? ... We can talk about "Archetype", but what does this mean to my eyes, my ears, my skin? Am I to worship an idea in my head?

Tough questions, but I'm hoping some here may be able to offer some pointers...

In Christ
Byron

Dear Byron,

One of the things I remember from taking an Old Testament Survey class as an undergraduate, is that when God gave Moses all the instructions for the Tabernacle on Mt. Sinai, the objects often had a dual purpose: They were for beauty and for use! However; we now know that, God does not dwell in tabernacles made by human hands.

We know also -and attempt to understand - that the redemption Jesus gives us, is not just for the salvation of our souls, but for the entire man. (I pray what I"m saying is not far-fetched, so stay with me). Everything God created is for man, for his stewardship. And, in all this creation, because of the way in which God has made man, as Paul says in the creation "...God's eternal power and divine attributes are clearly seen, so that they are without excuse..." The Apostle also wrote that "...food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body."
So then as "...tabernacles not made with human hands..." in which God dwells in the Spirit, we are both a creation of utilitarian use, and beauty. With our senses we're both able to "...taste and see that the Lord is good...", and be witnesses unto the ends of the Earth. Beautiful is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Having trained in undergrad studies as an artist (BFA), and agonizing through some of the more dense head courses (sorry Owen), I am no more alive both physically and spiritually than when surrendered to God in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. The "old man is dead"; however, the "new man" inhabits the same tabernacle. And instead of constructing a coliseum for murderous sport, I build for holy worship a Hagia Sophia, instead of painting a chapel ceiling, I write a Christ Pantocrator.

I see now in trying to provide an answer to your query, that "...thine own of thine own we offer unto Thee,..." applies as well to what God has put inside each of us, i.e., our senses. WE are both creations, and given the ability ourselves to be creators; so that even through our senses we might be able to utter with the Apostle "...O the depths of the wisdom and majesty of God, how unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways..."

As I said I've tried to provide an answer to your query. If anything I'v said is in error, someone please stop me!

the sinful and unworthy servant,

Byron Jack Gaist

26-06-2007, 08:52 AM

Dear Effie,

Thank you for your spontaneous and genuine response to my query. It is helpful.

I'm at a "stage" on my path where I'm questioning things it seems, so my comments may sound negative to others whose faith is currently active. Perhaps I should have written this in my previous post. It certainly isn't my intention to undermine the faith of the good people of monachos with my queries, but rather to ask for their intellectual help and support.

You mention quite rightly that Christ said those who believe without seeing are blessed. I think a Roman Catholic saint also asked not to know that he may come to believe, but to believe that he may come to know. Well, blasphemous though it may be, the thought then comes that such statements let the church "escape" the necessity to prove its claims to those with doubts. Like it or not (in my case not) we are living in an era of science, empiricism, proof. I realise that faith is itself a gift, and the gift of simple and true faith throughout one's life must be the most precious possession. However, for those who like myself are less certain in their choices, less established in their beliefs, faith itself can be a struggle. My own priest reccommends that I seek to love God rather than believe in him. This is a good approach and partly works, but being a psychologist I have a naturally suspicious mind perhaps (!) and the unholy thought came to me that this cultivation of prayer, going to church, sacraments, good works & good thoughts etc may "simply" be a form of self-conditioning: the more I "do" it, the more I come to think it's "real"; but I may be deluding myself - if I set out to, I could probably end up convincing myself that I'm a chicken...just live in a shed and feed on grains, start clucking and sit on eggs. The point is first to base your faith on some form of genuine inner...what shall I call it? Knowledge? Certainty? Experience? Conviction? I can hardly have satisfying relationships with the real persons who do surround me, leave alone with a Divine Person who may (possibly) be a figment of my imagination. How do I know that in worshipping "God", I am not merely paying service to my own grandiosity and narcissism, my reluctance to let go of infantile omnipotence?

This is part of the reason why, if I'm to believe in God and live a Christian life, for me it cannot be a matter of simple faith...On the upside of this equation is that what little faith I do have - that Christ may indeed be (notice I am not saying I know He is) a real Divine Person Who miraculously established the world and miraculously cares for each of us individually and calls us to personally relate to Him, that there is wonder at the heart of creation which no philosophy can dream of, yet which our faith is the guardian (but not the cell-warden) of - these beliefs are for me based perhaps in some measure on my real experience, or at the very least on hope. But hope is not enough, not to the cynic in me, and he is crying out to be respected as much as my enthusiastic and more easily spellbound inner child is. Hope canot satisfy reason's relentless doubts. Only experience can do that.

Your response Effie, has been helpful to me mainly because I sense you mean it. Rhetoric alone will not convince me, but people living their actual lives in an attempt to be close to God are inspiring. Sadly it seems I need even more than this, however; I need some form of experience - but please don't reccommend prayer and sacraments as sources of experience; while I know they are, I will first need to hear how this is not just self-conditioning, as described above. I think the experience I'm looking for is outside the "standard" church response to faint-heartedness. Please do not be discouraged by my incredulity, at least I don't doubt that someone on monachos may be able to reply.

From the boundaries of the faith, I send my greetings...

In Christ
Byron

Maria Mahoney

26-06-2007, 10:52 AM

Dear Byron,

Christ is risen from the dead! If not, then where is His body?

The first Martyrs died for what they actually saw and experienced. The Saints had mystical experiences. The history of Israel is also another experience. If these things don't help, then look at the order in nature and in all of the universe. And what would be the function of conscience in man? Then there are also the experiences of those who have been clinically dead and who were allowed to return to this life with their experiences. Of course, you can rationalize every one of these experiences away if you want... but then, that would just leave you a dead man.

Those who have faith will come to know God even in this life and have life... true eternal life. The life of sharing God's divine life in Theosis!

Luke 16: [27] And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house,
[28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
[29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
[30] And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
[31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

So we have the Risen Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Martyrs & Saints, Moses & the Prophets, Nature, and our own souls for a Testimony...

Truly He is Risen!

In Christ,
Maria

Effie Ganatsios

26-06-2007, 04:24 PM

Moses wrote : "Having trained in undergrad studies as an artist (BFA), and agonizing through some of the more dense head courses (sorry Owen), I am no more alive both physically and spiritually than when surrendered to God in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. The "old man is dead"; however, the "new man" inhabits the same tabernacle. And instead of constructing a coliseum for murderous sport, I build for holy worship a Hagia Sophia, instead of painting a chapel ceiling, I write a Christ Pantocrator"

I remember a programme I watched on TV once. 2 nuns were being interviewed. Their "work" was icon painting (writing?). I remember that both of them said that from the moment they start the icon, they pray constantly while working on it - and the beauty flows from their hearts, via their prayers, to the canvas. The beauty that is from God, as they believe.

Moses described this so well in his last sentence.

Effie

Byron Jack Gaist

26-06-2007, 05:06 PM

Dear Maria,

Indeed you're right that we do have Scripture and the lives of saints and martyrs to testify to religious verity. It would be fraudulent, too, to deny the wonder of nature or the complexity of our own souls. Given all this evidence, it does seem ungrateful to still be expressing doubt; however, that's what's there for me now, and I see little value in pretending otherwise. Pride? Should I accept faith on its own terms, and stop asking it to conform to my own, probably by admission ultimately cretinous, criterion of "truth" or "experience"? Perhaps. Yet I still want to get through this one as me, not by convincing myself that I should be satisfied with the evidence that's available, and putting on a semblance of piety which is in fact brittle and thin. Christ did say that more will be given to him who already has, but everything will be taken away from him who hasn't (got faith, presumably). These are hard words, but OK, the Boss said them so they must be true in some way. Did He mean this saying to be the foundation of our method of approaching those who express doubt? Threats and ridicule don't seem to endear others - I'm not saying that you purposely or even in fact at all used either, and I do appreciate your response to my queries, but I'm just saying "Christ is Risen" may be the cornerstone of our faith, but it is also an exclamation spoken by one who has seen the light - not one moping about in semi-darkness. A man with no legs also gains little value from being reminded that others can walk...sorry about the cryptic expressions, it must be Moses Anthony's tendency to a poetic turn of phrase that is influencing me! Thank you for your response, and if my own feedback here is in any way unpleasant, please forgive me. In fact, I need all the help I can get, and I wouldn't want to bite the hands that feed me.

Dear Moses Anthony,

As I said above, I like your attempt to respond to my queries with poetry. Perhaps that wasn't your intention however, or maybe I've even missed the actual point you were making. There is a great deal to sit and 'unpack' in your response, and I sense it emerged from your deep experience. Being an artist, you probably do understand a thing or two about the senses.
I see now in trying to provide an answer to your query, that "...thine own of thine own we offer unto Thee,..." applies as well to what God has put inside each of us, i.e., our senses. WE are both creations, and given the ability ourselves to be creators; so that even through our senses we might be able to utter with the Apostle "...O the depths of the wisdom and majesty of God, how unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways..."

This seems to me a fruitful line of thought. I've always felt disinclined to believe that any aspect of our material, physical being is in itself vulgar or profane. Surely this humble jar of clay is also a container for new wine, and is it too much to suggest that it may take from that sacred wine some of its flavours, and impart to the wine too some of its own earthly properties? The theme of this thread attracted me because a poster spoke frankly about the difficulties he is experiencing with passions of the flesh. No doubt there is universal consensus among Orthodox Christians that the way to perdition begins at the stomach and goes via the genitals to the head; but may there also be, in that fallen flesh, traces of the sacred? Might we glimpse heaven through our material being? The fire that burns with lust is not the same as the fire of Theosis, as Maria reminded me in her post; yet is there a mysterious connection between bodily experience and religious experience nevertheless? Is the flesh to be transformed, yet the body to be discovered (I wrote "killed" at first wrt the flesh, but I don't like this idea - surely if something is killed then it is dead, and if dead it may then need to be resurrected anyway so that it can live again)?

In Christ
Byron

John Charmley

26-06-2007, 05:23 PM

Dear Byron,

Would you mind if I prayed for you?

I have a sense that citing scripture or anything else at the moment will not reach where you are in the borderlands between Faith and Doubt. Can I say that there will be some here to whom your journey is not unfamiliar, and that one of the ways this can be approached is by ceasing to torment oneself, becoming quiet and letting spaces appear where the work of the Lord might be done. The temptation to want to have a clear answer to one's less than clear questions was, for me, part of the problem.

As you say, simply telling to to behave in a particular way is like your chicken analogy. Is it possible for you to stop asking for answers and wait to see what comes?

When you write
for those who like myself are less certain in their choices, less established in their beliefs, faith itself can be a struggle there will be those here who will know just what you mean, because not only have we been there, but we have been frequent visitors there; indeed, at times in our lives we have even had a season ticket. Faith, for some of us, is always something of a struggle - that is the nature at times of this world and our own marred human nature in it. When I have been there I have found saying the Lord's Prayer or the Prayer of the Heart effective.

But in the end, one cannot compel oneself to believe, it can come only, as you say, from an encounter with Him. Leave yourself open to that Byron, is the best advice I can offer - along with my empathy, and, if you will, my prayers for you. It is lonely out there on the boundary - so very oddly so given how many others are there too.

In Christ,

John

Nina

26-06-2007, 06:24 PM

In Christ
Byron

Byron,

Here is something from Paul Frost: "What do you think of God," the teacher asked. After a pause, the young pupil replied, "He's not a think, he's a feel."

It is obvious that you feel God. Why would you sign "In Christ" if you did not? The doubts are your battle (we all have our battles) and part of the cross you (I, we, all) need to lift with His help.

Byron Jack Gaist

27-06-2007, 09:04 AM

Dear John,

Your prayers are appreciated. You are probably also right that ceasing from asking questions and just leaving space (mental, psychological) is a good idea right now, so I will take your advice. Pray for me to come to some place of conviction, or at least to find a raft on the sea of doubt.

Dear Nina,

You're correct that my signing "In Christ" is significant. I mean it partly as a way of showing my sincere intentions to other monachos posters, and partly as a way of reassuring myself that, wherever my mind and my feet may be taking me, He hasn't and won't give up on me. God is a "feel", as the young pupil replied. Yet of course He must be much more than that - He must exist objectively, not just as personal conviction. Perhaps my error is in asking Him Who is everywhere, to make Himself manifest in some specific time or place or limited way. I don't know, but I do know life sucks without inner peace and faith.

Thanks to all for their concern.

In Christ
Byron

Maria Mahoney

27-06-2007, 09:39 AM

Dear Byron,

In a previous post you stated:

"How do I know that in worshipping "God", I am not merely paying service to my own grandiosity and narcissism, my reluctance to let go of infantile omnipotence?"

In the worst days of my life, this is exactly the label I was given by the psychiatrist for my belief, or was it the label I was given for being in the process of losing my faith? Because, the funny thing is... at that time my faith was at it's weakest. I was barely hanging on to life, let alone faith. I found that when I lost my faith, I also lost hope and finally lost the ability to love. I became self-centered and terribly depressed. Nothing and no one else mattered, except what I wanted... now I wonder in which state I was more grandiose, narcissistic, and infantile... that state in which I had faith or that state in which I had lost my faith? And for that matter let us compare the world of the Godless masses, to the world of those who believe... which is more self-grandiose, narcissistic, and infantile?

I did find that faith, hope and love are like a block tower... once one has faith, then comes hope, and then we grow into universal love. But if faith is removed, the other two topple as well!

Anyway, the best advice that I can give you from someone who has been there, done that, and got the whole t-shirt factory is... to go ahead and doubt, but keep praying, keep reading Scripture, and keep going to church.

I did a search on doubting God, these were a few (of many many links) that looked interesting to me. This is not at all even scratching the surface.

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/the-despair-of-unbelief/

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/students/dhall/NWR/Alban/Chapter1/01sci_god.html

http://www.biblebell.org/doubt.html

http://www.lifeteen.com/default.aspx?PageID=BGSTWDETAIL&__DocumentId=883

In Christ,
Maria

Nina

28-06-2007, 12:12 AM

Dear Nina,

You're correct that my signing "In Christ" is significant. I mean it partly as a way of showing my sincere intentions to other monachos posters, and partly as a way of reassuring myself that, wherever my mind and my feet may be taking me, He hasn't and won't give up on me.

You are very kind to be so considerate of others here! Do I have to tell you that this is love for thy neighbor that you are showing even in the smallest detail here?

I think though that you are harsh with yourself, which can be positive and negative (it depends on what your spiritual father has advised to you). However considering yourself as being on "the boundaries of the faith" (just because of your doubts) you are not being lenient at all with you. I think so, for the simple reason that what is happening to you (doubts), is a war from the evil one and if this is going on, I think you are at the core of your belief. If you were not there, you would not be also here asking help. Also I am sure you have heard of Saints and Holy Fathers who when not being tempted from the evil one asked God in prayer: "My God, why have You abandoned me?" When we do not have a spiritual war, or battle, that is the indicator that we are in the boundaries of the faith. And yes, you are right that God never gives up on us!

God is a "feel", as the young pupil replied. Yet of course He must be much more than that - He must exist objectively, not just as personal conviction. Perhaps my error is in asking Him Who is everywhere, to make Himself manifest in some specific time or place or limited way. I don't know, but I do know life sucks without inner peace and faith.

In Christ
Byron

I can PM you many personal stories that point to the indisputable for me, however I will not, because in order to be convinced, you have to find out for yourself, through prayer and persistence (once it took me three years and a half for some question I had and struggle to be answered - and it is not like I prayed a lot, but God showed His infinite mercy and also showed me Who was right, and who was confused and wrong. But everything happened in an un-forceful way). A spiritual father is also crucial with his advise in this case.

PS

ceasing from asking questions and just leaving space (mental, psychological) is a good idea right now

I did not mean to intrude in the space you are trying to have. I apologize if it is not right, however I had to say the things above.

Andrew

28-06-2007, 05:11 AM

-I deleted this last post.

Herman Blaydoe

28-06-2007, 01:52 PM

Bishop Anthony (Bloom) of Blessed Memory writes that "when God seems absent, that is the true beginning of prayer". Blessed Theophan the Recluse tells us that God may "remove Himself" from our sight for a time, to encourage us to redouble our efforts in prayer.

What is Faith? The Apostle Paul tells us that it is simply hope in things unseen. Sometimes hope ebbs, trust is hard to muster. It happens to the "best" of us, even the saints themselves. But if we can still put forth an effort, even if it seems dry and barren, we will be rewarded. That is our hope, that is our prayer.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Moses Anthony

29-06-2007, 03:55 PM

Dear Byron,
I purchased some years ago a book from Prof. Emeritus Dr, Charles Ashanin, of blessed memory, The Spiritual Wisdom and Practices of Early Christianity, by Alphonse and Rachel Goettmann. They are French hesychasts, and he is an Orthodox priest.
I thought of you had posted a query about what we're to do with our feelings. And although the specific chapter is about the Bible, Fr. Goettmann briefly mentions our senses.
"The relation which is established with the Bible is not at all that of subject and object, of the reader and the book, but a relation of love, of an "I" and a "You", whose communion will one day bring forth a wedding. That is the meaning of "Covenant", which is the true name of the Bible and its entire fabric. From then on , each "reading" of the Bible is in fact an invitation to experience: "Come and See"(John 1:39)....This intimate "listening" as the fundamental attitude of the encounter with God will also allow us to "see" Him everywhere.....And the public reading is always done in song for the singing voice comes from somewhere else, beyond a psychic tonality, transmitting the profound vibration of being and making the listener enter into the same resonance. The Tradition reminds us that it is the Christ whom we are hearing. It is an experiential "reading" through which we seek to "taste" the Presence as in the Eucharist and to "smell" His perfume thanks to the incense which surrounds the text. Everything is carnal in this approach, the body is fully involved, as it should be in a reciprocity of love. This is the very logic of the Incarnation."
When I read the Shamma, as it's found in the "New Covenant" (Mark 12:29-33), I see that in this "reciprocity of love", all that I am is involved. When as the Scribe said, we love the Lord our God "with all the understanding", the more will be given to us. For those who make request of Him, God will not give His children a snake , who ask for a fish. Neither does He reveal to His children more of His light than they can bear. However; we do "unpack" that which we have so that more can be put into our container. For God, who said , "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the one who has shone in our (senses) to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves.
If there's a "poetic turn of phrase", it was never intentional.

the sinful and unworthy servant

John Charmley

30-06-2007, 10:54 AM

Dear Byron,

Dear John,

Your prayers are appreciated. You are probably also right that ceasing from asking questions and just leaving space (mental, psychological) is a good idea right now, so I will take your advice. Pray for me to come to some place of conviction, or at least to find a raft on the sea of doubt.

I hope that you will take with you into the contemplative silence the strong words of encouragement from all here who will keep you in their thoughts and prayers.

Such moments - and they can last far longer - come to many of us; they are part, perhaps, of the time of trial in this life. May He guide and guard you through to where it is most expedient for you to be.

In Christ,

John

Byron Jack Gaist

01-07-2007, 05:43 PM

Dear all,

Your posts have been of enormous help and encouragement, for which I can only offer my sincere thanks. I do not feel like such an outsider to others in the church when I read such messages.

Alas, what now remains is for me to get my act together (making sure it's not an "act", since that wouldn't really work for me), and begin to look for God in my life again, or at least let Him begin to find me. Easier said than done, I'm afraid - which creature comfort shall I give up first? I lean on so many bad habits to get me through each day...can I really be bothered to add discipline to a life that is already demanding enough? I do hope God is patient, He has certainly been more than patient in my case so far...

Once again, thank you all for your wise and compassionate support.

Dear Moses Anthony,

If what you write is true, then we honour the body and the senses in their capacity to fully participate in worshipping God, each time we cross ourselves from right to left "and with all my strength".

Dear Maria Mahoney,

Thank you for the links. As a psychologist, I can personally vouch for the fact that both therapists and their clients can fall prey to pride and inflation. There is a necessary moral neutrality in psychotherapy, which can be sadly misinterpreted (by those who misunderstand the point of psychological counselling, which can include its professional practitioners) to suit one's personal proclivities. Christianity is not morally neutral, and actively discourages grandiosity in ways which psychotherapy only implicitly ever suggests. Of course, that doesn't mean there are no inflated personalities going by the name of "Christian". It's a tough one, pride.

In Christ
Byron

Father David Moser

02-07-2007, 03:11 AM

As a psychologist, I can personally vouch for the fact that both therapists and their clients can fall prey to pride and inflation. There is a necessary moral neutrality in psychotherapy, which can be sadly misinterpreted (by those who misunderstand the point of psychological counselling, which can include its professional practitioners) to suit one's personal proclivities. Christianity is not morally neutral, and actively discourages grandiosity in ways which psychotherapy only implicitly ever suggests. Of course, that doesn't mean there are no inflated personalities going by the name of "Christian".

Byron,

As a formerly practicing therapist (LPC, now retired from practice) and now a priest I can very certainly confirm your observations about the difference in "moral neutrality" For example when my spiritual children come to me in confession - there is a very strong emphasis on "I have sinned, I am sorry" and if I as a priest try to act the counselor and neutralize that repentance, then I dilute the effectiveness of the confession. OTOH, even in Pastoral Counseling (different, btw, from Confession) there are certain presuppositions in Orthodoxy about what is an acceptable option of behavior and what is not, whereas in counseling there is no real limitation (other than the safety of the client, others and meeting basic needs) No matter what my personal beliefs are, in counseling I do not impose those upon my client - but in the Church, of course we do impose the belief and practice of the Church upon the believer and in confession it is even more heavy handed.

But there are two separate priorities here. The counselor wants to facilitate the person's functioning in the world around him. The Church wants to facilitate the person's transfiguration and transition into the Kingdom of God. We are indeed actively shaping the soul to conform to Christ, using the standards and beliefs of the Church as a mold to create and solidify that likeness.

I encourage you to continue using this community and the Church as a whole as a "mold" by which you can actualize the image of God in you.

Fr David Moser

PS. If this topic of discussion goes much further, I'll probably come back and move the whole thing to its own thread.

Byron Jack Gaist

03-07-2007, 01:21 PM

No matter what my personal beliefs are, in counseling I do not impose those upon my client - but in the Church, of course we do impose the belief and practice of the Church upon the believer and in confession it is even more heavy handed.
Dear Fr David,

I am also very cautious during counselling not to be directive or take sides on issues, especially since I'm aware of what value there may be in the client arriving at their own insights. The sense of "moral neutrality" which I find can encourage the sort of thinking I would frankly call selfish, occurs when people with a conscious or less-than-conscious hidden agenda use the language and concepts of counselling to further their own ends, political or otherwise. As you rightly point out, counselling has a different function to confession, or even to pastoral counselling (where the similarities may be greater). And just as Christianity can highlight the risks associated with the "moral neutrality" of much secular counselling theory, secular counsellors can accuse Christian laymen and clergy of having to "tow the party line" where shared human experience would suggest otherwise. Both phenomena are probably at best the result of a misunderstanding of the correct function of each theoretical 'paradigm'.

On a personal level, I appreciate your invitation to stay with monachos and with the whole Church. I may be one who flirts with the idea of Christianity, one of the saplings that sprouts in dry soil, only to wither before it blooms. I don't want to be unecessarily hard on myself, but I'm certainly not a Christian in a committed sense yet. All I do have is a sense of the holiness of the Church, and respect for its Founder. I just wish I could translate that respect into a life lived according to the commandments, without my mind straying, doubting, and wandering off into 'weird and wonderful' dead-ends. I can see something of the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's the price of the ticket to get there that scares me.

In Christ
Byron

M.C. Steenberg

03-07-2007, 04:57 PM

Dear all,

With respect (loosely) to the topic of this thread, I've just obtained a copy of the volume, Raising Lazarus: Integral Healing in Orthodox Christianity (ed. S. Muse, Brookine: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2004), which looks as if it might have some relevant comment. I would be grateful for reflections on the volume by those who have already read it.

INXC, Matthew

Paul Cowan

03-07-2007, 05:42 PM

Dear Byron,

I just wish I could translate that respect into a life lived according to the commandments, without my mind straying, doubting, and wandering off into 'weird and wonderful' dead-ends.

Don't we all.

I can see something of the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's the price of the ticket to get there that scares me.

What may I ask is your perceived price of a ticket?
Most quasi or non-christians do not believe in an afterlife. When you die, you die. If you are not worried about life after death, then what scares you? The price of the ticket, to follow your metaphor, is during this life. The final destination is the afterlife. So to live the "Christian life" is what scares you?

What does that look like to you?
To me it means to love God with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your strength (as poorly as I attempt to try) and to love your neighbor as yourself. (again, a poor attempt by me)

God comes to us where we are. If we wait for the perfect occurances to line up before we decide "yes" or even "no", we may find the elevator of life never stops to let us off. It's that leap of faith thing as in the Indiana Jones movie. Take a deep breath, close your eyes and take the first step. When you realize you are not falling to the bottom of the abyss, you open your eyes and exhale with wonder and relief.

Humbly,
Paul

Byron Jack Gaist

05-07-2007, 08:03 AM

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for the reference - it sounds interesting to check out.

Dear Paul

What scares me on the intellectual level, and leads me to an almost agnostic attitude at times, is the enormous uncertainty of it all. I can see that being an atheist involves quite as much a "leap of faith" - even in purely rational terms - as being a committed Christian; hence the almost evangelical fervour of confirmed atheists like Richard Dawkins. I'm not impressed, however, by attempts to persuade others so that one may feel more convinced in oneself. Instead, the nameless dread of uncertainty, which you rightly refer to as an "abyss" is what scares me: we may simply cease to exist, or we may live on: that is the question, and to a thinking mind - religious or otherwise - it remains open, even if it doesn't in itself constitute a threat to faith which is healthy and robust.

Thankfully, responses like yours do not belong in the "attempts to persuade others so that one may feel more convinced in oneself" category, and do reach even unstable sorts like myself (a bit like Heineken lager!). I can hear your own Christian journey taking place behind your words, and that's what seems important to me right now. On an emotional level, this is also a "scary" aspect of the price of the ticket: Orthodox Christianity does mean making sacrifices in worldly pleasure and self-aggrandization for a "mere hope" of a reward after death.

However, life is definitely happier when the mind is not closed to its Creator, and even an attempt to live with some humility is in fact more enjoyable than many pleasures of the flesh. I'm very happy to let fellow monachos posters know that I've recently been feeling again the stirrings of hope and even a little faith inside, and this is partly due to the help I've received on this website. Many thanks.

Now "all" that remains is that tricky little technical issue of actually living the commandments!!!

In Christ
Byron

John Charmley

05-07-2007, 01:18 PM

Dear Byron,

I'm very happy to let fellow monachos posters know that I've recently been feeling again the stirrings of hope and even a little faith inside, and this is partly due to the help I've received on this website. Many thanks.
That is good to know; may it continue.

What you write strikes many chords with me, and I doubt I am the only one who feels a sense of recognition in relation to what you describe.

When you write

What scares me on the intellectual level, and leads me to an almost agnostic attitude at times, is the enormous uncertainty of it all
it is a place many of us have been - 'on the edge' as you memorably describe it. Uncertainty cuts both ways, of course, which is why silence and a quiet mind at such moments is no bad idea.

On an emotional level, this is also a "scary" aspect of the price of the ticket: Orthodox Christianity does mean making sacrifices in worldly pleasure and self-aggrandization for a "mere hope" of a reward after death.
That is one way of looking at it. Worldly pleasure and self-aggrandizement exact their own prices, and often their fruit is that of the Dead Sea. There can be a real pleasure in the struggle to align one's will with His, and too often we can write and talk as though the Christian way was one permanent via dolorosa. The Desert Fathers seem to have found much joy in their struggle - and perhaps if we can find some of that, what may seem sacrificial is the abandonment of baggage unnecessary for our journey.

That we fall over I take for granted; that we sometimes feel like not getting up again is something I am familiar with; that we stumble always even when we get up, seems to be part of the process. All we can do each for the other is to offer a hand when needed - and the odd bit of encouragement that comes from recognising the same rocky road we all travel. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we have the Church and say 'we believe'?

May He be with you and may you find the way as is most expedient for you.

In Christ,

John

Paul Cowan

06-07-2007, 03:41 AM

Dear Byron,

Instead, the nameless dread of uncertainty, which you rightly refer to as an "abyss" is what scares me: we may simply cease to exist, or we may live on: that is the question, and to a thinking mind - religious or otherwise - it remains open, even if it doesn't in itself constitute a threat to faith which is healthy and robust.

Phillipians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
bold mine

Proverbs 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=2&version=50&context=chapter) is a good one to read also on the Fear of God. I think it touches on most everything you wrote on fear of God and the unknown, self gormandizing, hedonism in the world and loose living.

Now "all" that remains is that tricky little technical issue of actually living the commandments!!!

Jesus loves us so much he came to earth to help us get closer to him. Hie died for us so we would not have to endure that pain either. He knocked down the commandments of God from 10 to 2. He did most everything for us.

Deutronomy 30:11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

I know I am over scripturing all this. I am just trying to say, He has done the hardest work for us. All we have to say is ok, then follow through with our declaration.

Instead, the nameless dread of uncertainty, which you rightly refer to as an "abyss" is what scares me: we may simply cease to exist, or we may live on: that is the question,

In the end for those on the wire, either He is or He is not. If HE is not, party hardy. But if He is...we should keep in mind who we party with. What is there to fear but fear itself. If we cannot add one cubit to our stature, we surely cannot prevent ourselves from dying. If death is the end, like I said, party hardy. But if death is not the end, we should all do well to remember to live the 2 commandments remaining to us.

I hope I did not cross the line in "attempts to persuade others so that one may feel more convinced in oneself". I am already convinced I am THE worst of sinners and will have to pay the price of my lifestyle. But I am also convinced of the afterlife and God's great grace and mercy on me THE worst of sinners.

Paul

Maria Mahoney

06-07-2007, 09:16 AM

Dear Byron,

As I journey along on the Orthodox Way, I find those things you call sacrifices were nothing more than my slave drivers. I really am feeling free at last! I hope one day you can experience this joy and freedom too!

Orthodox Christianity does mean making sacrifices in worldly pleasure and self-aggrandization for a "mere hope" of a reward after death.

For a long time I had similar feelings... but after considering the Way, I felt I would not regret living a holy life. I feel complete and whole living the life that Christ taught. It really is what being human (if not divine) is all about.

In Christ,
Maria

Byron Jack Gaist

06-07-2007, 10:41 AM

Hello Folks, Paul, Maria,

What do you think of this particular problem:

Christianity (at least the Orthodox kind) invites us to renounce worldly ambitions and strive for perfection in holiness instead. Now, if you are someone like me, you may know what it's like to be basically ineffective, maladjusted and a failure in the world. None of my plans have worked out, and one of my favourite sayings is therefore John Lennon's "life is what happens while you're making plans".

I once heard a bishop say they do not accept monks in a monastery who are simply disappointed with the world, but only monks whose monastic vocation is real. So even in a monastery, I don't belong. Not becauase I have no vocation as such (how do I know, I've never tried), but because my feeling towards the world and its strivings is primarily disappointment. Actually it has always been like that for me, since childhood, so all this talk of the blows of experience and slings and arrows of outrageous fortune etc, while richly confirmed by my later life, really needn't have taken place to have convinced me of the ultimate futility of everything involving humans, of which I was convinced by age 3. God, on the other hand, seems to be another business altogether, and while He too is a Person, seems to be most unusual in being profoundly kind, generous and just. Like no other person I've ever known, in fact.

Anyway, my question is, some say that in order to be able to renounce the world, one must first have been in a position of having mastered it in the first place. How can you renounce what, as in my case, you have never possessed? Isn't that just Aesop's fox saying the grapes are sour because they're too high to reach?

In Christ
Byron

Maria Mahoney

06-07-2007, 10:51 AM

Dear Byron,

Anyway, my question is, some say that in order to be able to renounce the world, one must first have been in a position of having mastered it in the first place. How can you renounce what, as in my case, you have never possessed? Isn't that just Aesop's fox saying the grapes are sour because they're too high to reach?

I don't know about mastering the world ... I only know about being run over by it myself. HA! But I look around me and see all these little slaves running and running to get the golden apple... why? They dance to the devils tune and don't even know it! I don't know if I am considered a success or total failure by "others"... I'm sure in most peoples eyes, based on their standards, I am a total failure. But personally... I feel very successful. Free, happy and at peace! That is something all the money, houses, fancy cars, fame, sex, food, etc., etc., etc. could never give me. I have my being in God... I don't need the recognition of anyone else.

People are chasing after all of this... fame, fortune, materialistic, power, _______ (fill in the blank). Maybe the thing to renounce is the root of it all... the desire... which we all have, success or not.

BTW...I DO enjoy addressing all this shadowy stuff. :o)

In Christ,
Maria

Paul Cowan

06-07-2007, 05:36 PM

I once heard a bishop say they do not accept monks in a monastery who are simply disappointed with the world, but only monks whose monastic vocation is real.

Perhaps a good yardstick, but I dare say many monks over time would not have been if this rule were a fixed rule. Many people "left the world" after their spouses died so as not to open themselves to sin. And yes, perhaps disappointment is not a good reason to join a monastery, but I believe that is why there is 3 year observation period for novices to see 1) if they are "worthy" to be monks and 2) to see if their despondency leaves and they want to return to the world.

Anyway, my question is, some say that in order to be able to renounce the world, one must first have been in a position of having mastered it in the first place.

I mastered the world before I turned 16 years old. :) Isn't everyone smarter than their parents at that age? Who can possibly master the world? Not even Satan is the "master" of the world. God meets us where we are. Some want to be monks. I do, but cannot until after my wife reposes. Even then, will I be accepted? SOme want to be clergy. Some want to lead Holy lives. Some just want to live in the mountains "away fron it all". These are all good ambitions. But some of us cannot leave the city, our jobs, our responsibilites to family and friends.

I think we can all renounce the world and still live where we are and do what we are doing. It is a mindset and an action-set. I don't have to go to bars anymore. I don't have to hang out at the water cooler any more. I turned off the tv and radio 3 years ago in lew of MOnachos and Ancient Faith radio. I now control (for the most part) my surroundings. As my priest says "the passive receptors" are your eyes, and ears. COntrol those and you control with God's help what you think and retain in your mind. It's about mental sobriety. Not getting drunk on the world. IMHO

Paul

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-07-2007, 05:47 PM

Byron wrote:

Anyway, my question is, some say that in order to be able to renounce the world, one must first have been in a position of having mastered it in the first place. How can you renounce what, as in my case, you have never possessed? Isn't that just Aesop's fox saying the grapes are sour because they're too high to reach?

Many Holy Fathers define 'the world' as the passions since obviously we are not being asked to turn our backs on God's creation. So what we are called to renounce is the passions, which in actuality means to engage in a life-long struggle in their regard.

Now as to Aesop's fox- unfortunately we can can say that we have reached for and tasted the grapes too many times. And even though they are sour! :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Byron Jack Gaist

09-07-2007, 08:00 AM

Dear all,

Now as to Aesop's fox- unfortunately we can can say that we have reached for and tasted the grapes too many times. And even though they are sour! :)
Trust Fr Raphael to know just where to give a delusion the kick it deserves!

I don't know if I am considered a success or total failure by "others"... I'm sure in most peoples eyes, based on their standards, I am a total failure. But personally... I feel very successful. Free, happy and at peace!
Maria, I guess that's what I'm talking about - that wide gap which can exist between our own perception of our lives, and those images of "success" - the grapes which in fact are sour - projected and imposed on us by collective standards. This seems to me to be one of the great strengths of true Christianity, that it has defeated the world. Alas, for a rebel like myself this means that conventional criteria of "holiness" should be also set aside when looking at the true value of a life, otherwise hypocrisy, priggishness and prudishness take over where the joy of life and our full participation in it should be. In other words, some of the worst "projectors" I've met were "Christians"! If that's "Christianity", give me a sinner anyday!

But Fr Raphael, Paul and others have the right approach, it seems, having firmly chosen a path of struggle against the passions, which is probably the only way to see - and taste - that clearly the grapes are sour. Even rich and successful people have to sit nervously on their fortunes and "good" standing. And if Christians are to be truly free, then surely they cannot judge themselves by the criteria of their would-be masters: the argument, therefore, that in order to reject the world, one must have possessed it in the first place, is a false one on two counts:

a. by being sinners, we all do in fact, to differing extents, "possess" the world, and
b. if one rejects the world, then one must also reject its criteria of "success". Hence demanding that one should have success before one is allowed to reject it, is like telling a black person that they should be white before they can have the right to condemn racism!

Thanks to all for helping me sort some of this stuff out.

In Christ
Byron

M.C. Steenberg

10-07-2007, 02:15 PM

Dear Byron,

Thank you so much for this last post, which so clearly tied together the notion of 'rejecting the world' with the reality of authentic freedom - which is the only way in which one can ever truly love the world in the manner that God loves it. God loves the world precisely because it is not bound to him, not a by-product of his being or a necessary componant of his nature. It is an other borne of freedom, not necessity, and thus a thing that can be wholly and truly loved. In the same way, a person bound to the standards of the world, even if out of a sense of fondness for it, is constrained in the freedom to love it fully, freely.

Your comments resonated with me, as at the moment I am midway through Metropolitan John Zizioulas' new book, Communion and Otherness, in the opening chapters of which he deals with precisely this.

INXC, Matthew

Byron Jack Gaist

13-07-2007, 11:06 AM

Dear Matthew,

In the same way, a person bound to the standards of the world, even if out of a sense of fondness for it, is constrained in the freedom to love it fully, freely.
This is a very interesting and perceptive viewpoint. It seems to open up something which we might otherwise take for granted, i.e. the 'love' for the world which worldly people are so often congratulated for. "Embrace life!", we introverts, failures, drop-outs, misfits, nerds, the socially anxious and psychologically repressed and other assorted 'losers' are told, "live fully!" - all good advice, except it's usually said as an addendum to a more general invitation to sin. This may be why alongside the enjoinder to participate in the world, Christians are reminded not to be of it.

True love for the world therefore does involve recognition of its essential otherness - from the human spirit, from our calling and purpose which include mundane existence, but also transcend it. The 'love' which worldly people feel, be it for power, status, sexual pleasure etc. is in fact not love, and perhaps the climate crisis is one proof of that. Discussing the climate crisis with a taxi driver, he remarked humorously that "everything we [meaning modern civilisation] do is para physin"; indeed, 'love' of the worldly is a love contra naturam. How can one subscribe readily to such an approach to God's creation? How can one maintain the car, house, 9 to 5 office job, bank account, loan lifestyle and proceed to carry on 'loving' this world to death? Yet I do. The mortgage must be paid, the kids fed and educated. So I continue, para physin.

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

13-07-2007, 03:19 PM

People do it all the time. Just observe.

John Charmley

13-07-2007, 06:47 PM

Dear Byron,

Your cri de coeur is one that speaks to many of us, I suspect. This, from the Letter to Diognetus comes to mind after reading what you write:

For Christians are not distinct from other men in terms either of their territories, their language or their way of life ... They live in the cities of the Greeks or the barbarians, as the lot has fallen to each one, and they adapt to the customs of the place in their clothing and food and in the rest of their way of living, offering the example of their marvellous form of social life ... They live each in his own native land, but as if they were foreigners. They take their share in all the burdens as citizens, and they put up with everything as strangers. Every foreign land is a native land for them, and every native land is a foreign land ... They live in the flesh, but not according to the flesh. They dwell on earth and are citizens of heaven ... To put it in a word, Christians are in the world what the soul is to the body ... The soul loves the flesh that hates it and loves its limbs: Christians, too, love those who hate them ...

Some things change not.

In Christ,

John

Paul Cowan

14-07-2007, 03:09 AM

cri de coeur:
Pronunciation: "krE-d&-'k&r
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cris de coeur /same/
Etymology: French, literally, cry from the heart
: a passionate outcry (as of appeal or protest)

para physin: "beyond nature" as opposed to unnatural

contra naturam: Ok this one seemed more translatable to some thing like "against nature"

The first definition I found pretty easily. The other two I had to piece to gether their meanings from reading a dozen or so each search hits in Google.

Please for those of you that do know other languages, please translate them for the rest of us. Thank you.

Paul

1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.

John Charmley

14-07-2007, 06:45 PM

Dear Paul,

A good reminder!

However hard it sometimes is to translate the words, the spirit of what Byron writes speaks straight to the heart, and I hope the Letter to Diognetus speaks to us all too. I omitted the last few lines but feel it right to add them here:

The soul is shut up within the body, but it is the soul that sustains the body: Christians, too, are held in the world as in a prison, but it is they who sustain the world ... God has assigned them such a high position, and they are not allowed to abandon it.

In Christ,

John

Effie Ganatsios

15-07-2007, 07:50 AM

Byron, you write : "What scares me on the intellectual level, and leads me to an almost agnostic attitude at times, is the enormous uncertainty of it all. I can see that being an atheist involves quite as much a "leap of faith" - even in purely rational terms - as being a committed Christian; hence the almost evangelical fervour of confirmed atheists like Richard Dawkins. I'm not impressed, however, by attempts to persuade others so that one may feel more convinced in oneself. Instead, the nameless dread of uncertainty, which you rightly refer to as an "abyss" is what scares me: we may simply cease to exist, or we may live on: that is the question, and to a thinking mind - religious or otherwise - it remains open, even if it doesn't in itself constitute a threat to faith which is healthy and robust."

Ah, Byron, do you imagine that there is one person on this forum who is 100% certain of what happens when we die. If anyone can say this then they are fooling themselves. Faith, faith, faith. I have said this before and I will say it again... we all have a choice. What do I choose - do I choose to believe in a random world or do I choose to believe in a world that is governed by certain laws, the principal being the law of love.

What are the fruits of the first and what are the fruits of the second?

Everything we need to know is in Christ's words. The tree will be judged by its fruit..... we can talk for eons using big words but everything we need to know is in Christ's words. First, choose to believe, then open your heart.

Study the words of Jesus and you will find what you are looking for. You won't find scientific experiments that "prove" that when our bodies cease to exist we happily step out of them and continue as "something" else.......
and there is no-one that can guarantee this for you Byron. But, forget about all the millions of words surrounding Christ and just meditate on his life and his words.

Back to Jesus' words - why worry about tomorrow? There is no yesterday and no tomorrow but just today. What am I doing today? Is my day dedicated to God? Am I appreciating just being alive and thanking God that
he created such a wonderful world? Am I being a good steward and taking care of his world? What about those around me? Am I affecting them positively or negatively?

During the years I have lived I have experienced the deaths of many people and I know for certain (something I can guarantee 100%) that nothing remains but the good these people did during their lives. Not their wealth, not their knowledge, nothing but the affect their lives had on those around them.. I would like to be an inventor, or a scientist or someone who has done something stupendous, something that has proven to be beneficial for mankind but I don't see myself doing anything like that before I die (smile). We ordinary people can love God, strive to follow his commandments and persevere on our lonely path towards oneness with God. Again I will say that we are unique and each path is unique - you need to find yours.

"Rev 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door,

I will come in to him and will dine with him and he with Me."

These words were written by St. John, Christ's beloved companion (and cousin apparently, something I read recently but haven't had a chance to learn more about yet ), someone who had known Jesus personally.

Someone who from being a simple fisherman became one of our foremost saints. He saw and believed.

But there were others with Christ who did not believe even after they had lived with Him. If these contemporary companions of Christ did not believe 100%, isn't it natural that we who live now, 2000 years after, have doubts. No-one can answer your questions Byron, and you are futilely seeking guarantees. Only Christ can and only if you let him. This you have already done because of what you write in your posts, so why not just relax, forget about guarantees and just allow yourself to love Him and follow Him. And don't worry about the doubts - at times our greatest saints had them, we have them. Trust in God - allow yourself this luxury.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

15-07-2007, 08:26 AM

cri de coeur:
Pronunciation: "krE-d&-'k&r
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cris de coeur /same/
Etymology: French, literally, cry from the heart
: a passionate outcry (as of appeal or protest)

para physin: "beyond nature" as opposed to unnatural

contra naturam: Ok this one seemed more translatable to some thing like "against nature"

The first definition I found pretty easily. The other two I had to piece to gether their meanings from reading a dozen or so each search hits in Google.

Please for those of you that do know other languages, please translate them

for the rest of us. Thank you."Paul

"Para- can be a Greek root or a prefix and literally means "alongside, beside." It usually suggests something similar but not identical or something that aids or accompanies something else. The Latin root -para- is less common in English and means "beyond."

In Greek the word paraphysic means unnatural or against nature.

paraphysin : para = against
physin = nature

Another example : paralogos means "against logic" or illogical

para in greek can also mean "in addition to" :

parakratos = extra-government organizations (shadow governments).

parakoimame para =over
koimame = I sleep
so : I oversleep

para in greek can also mean : next to, beside

e.g. parathalassio means "next to the sea" or "beside the sea"

This is a very, very common prefix in the greek language and there are hundreds of words that include it.

Hope the above helped a little.

Effie

Byron Jack Gaist

15-07-2007, 06:55 PM

Dear Paul,

Please accept my apologies for assuming knowledge of other languages, ones no longer in current use at that (Ancient Greek and Latin). Believe me, I have no real knowledge of either. I do like collecting odd phrases, words and expressions, though!

Dear Effie,

I do assume that even convinced Christians struggle with doubts at times. If I expressed my own (rather numerous) prevarications here, it was done mostly in the spirit of hoping to receive some friendly support and useful suggestions from fellow-sufferers or those in a slightly better predicament to my own - which is exactly what I got!

You are right of course, only a real relationship with Christ in the Church can provide any sort of adequate 'answer' to those doubts. For the moment I'm still hiding in the "shadowlands", afraid to address God in any kind of genuine manner. This website and the odd flicker of interest and pang of conscience is all that remains of my much-diminished faith at the moment. I'm hoping it will go away, as it's both confusing and makes me slightly sick all the time, nauseous is perhaps the right word; but I'm a stubborn one, and won't pray until it feels right.

Dear John,

A nice quotation. Particularly interesting: "The soul loves the flesh that hates it and loves its limbs". What does it mean? What is the author trying to say, and what does it teach us about the right approach to our souls and bodies?

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

15-07-2007, 07:10 PM

"won't pray until it feels right."

Why wait until it feels right? Pray when it doesn't feel right. That's what true faith is all about. Praying when it's hard, not when it's easy. You don't believe? You have doubts? So what? Who cares? Do you think God cares? No, you are the only one who cares. So stop whining and just pray.

Paul Cowan

16-07-2007, 01:58 AM

Having a bad day Owen?

The whole purpose Jesus came to earth was to reconcile man to God.

He is the one who taught us to pray the "Our Father".
He is the one who said Love your neighbor as yourself.
He is the one who taught the people to turn the other cheek when offended.

just pray

Unlike yourself, I am sure this is not as easy for some. I find it very hard at times. You are right in that we should just pray even through hard or dry times. Then again some of us are not "there" yet.

1 Thessalonians 5:12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves.
14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. 15 See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all.
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

(bold mine of course)

We are not asked to pray quality. We are asked to pray quantity. All of us can always without interruption pray "Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have mercy on me THE sinner."

Paul

Father David Moser

16-07-2007, 05:47 AM

Unlike yourself, I am sure this [to "just pray] is not as easy for some. I find it very hard at times. You are right in that we should just pray even through hard or dry times. Then again some of us are not "there" yet.

This variability in the ability to pray reveals the strength of our Orthodox tradition of a prayer rule. When we are unable to muster the strength or even motivation to pray then the routine of the prayer rule is all we have to fall back upon. Even if your prayer is mechanical - then still it will have some impact on your soul. And the more you pray, even in a routine manner, then the more your soul will benefit and be able to reconnect with the spiritual life and strength that will make your prayer lively and vibrant again. So when you don't fell like praying, when it is hard - then just stick to the routine, the written prayers - force yourself to follow this rule of prayer and over time you will benefit even from what may seem to you to be "dry" or "hard" or "mechanical" prayers.

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

16-07-2007, 07:31 AM

Bishop Eirenaios said, 'So! You know God's mind! Such pride! Do not presume to tell God about the quality of your prayer. Who are you to tell Him how He should receive it?'

Byron Jack Gaist

16-07-2007, 08:38 AM

Dear all,

All your comments are useful, including Owen's. I'd like to also hear some comments on "The soul loves the flesh that hates it and loves its limbs", if anyone has any (comments, that is, not limbs!). Perhaps a related question is: in what way is spiritual progress in struggle against the passions, different from, indeed opposite to, psychological repression? I presume by telling us not to dwell on - indeed to distract our attention from - negative thoughts, Orthodoxy is surely not advocating that we become repressed individuals, lying to ourselves, Polyannas full of "sweetness and light" or morbidly religiose, full of warnings about evil, brimstone and fire...none of these caricatures make very appealing role models. So - how to be Orthodox, balanced, and true to oneself and others?

A few small questions for light Monday morning conversation! BTW, none of the people I've spoken to on this website have ever struck me as being caricatures, so in a sense I already know the above question is fallacious, but it's still troubling me.

In Christ
Byron

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-07-2007, 04:46 PM

Byron wrote:

I'd like to also hear some comments on "The soul loves the flesh that hates it and loves its limbs"...

During a recent series of talks on the loss of the image & likeness in man (and also how to regain it) there was a moment when the question arose as to why passion is usually a more powerful energy in man than that towards what is good. ie if, as we do, we have both impulses within us, why is the energy of fallen passion so much more powerful?

Also related to this question is why are passionate memories so much more powerful and long-lasting in effect (think of all the psychological theories and practices that rely on this understanding) than that of good?

After all, in both situations, the good is what is most important and valuable to us. But yet the energy of passion is what seems most powerful within us...and long-lasting in its effects.

I sense this is part of Byron's point & I also am interested ( an understated word for sure about something that affects each of us so directly!) in why the sin we know to be so distorted, & which we even disown, is still a more powerful if not predominating force, in comparison to that of the good.

Perhaps the answer to this is only through an Orthodox understanding of the will which to us is not a mechanical force ( eg 'to change your life try harder'). Rather the will is an inherent force of attraction which is also related to the conscious part of desiring (ie what we consciously & by decision aim towards).

This is the aspect of us that must be gradually resurrected within us by continual ascetic struggle. So that the will in all of its aspects is transfigured from within and resumes its natural desire & attraction for the good rather than for what is evil. This is why in fact we aim at a life of virtue rather than only of psychological and moral effort. For virtue refers to Christ's grace transfiguring what we are (ie not changing us from a to b; but making a a transfigured a) rather than just 'trying harder'.

Perhaps a related question is: in what way is spiritual progress in struggle against the passions, different from, indeed opposite to, psychological repression? I presume by telling us not to dwell on - indeed to distract our attention from - negative thoughts, Orthodoxy is surely not advocating that we become repressed individuals, lying to ourselves, Polyannas full of "sweetness and light" or morbidly religiose, full of warnings about evil, brimstone and fire...none of these caricatures make very appealing role models. So - how to be Orthodox, balanced, and true to oneself and others?

Personally (but that's just me- others can add something more helpful I'm sure) I find it helpful to understand the history of the understanding of repression in our society. I think it is related to the concept of alienation which arose from Romantic theories concerning man during the 18th- 19th centuries. Basically such theories felt that man over the ages had increasingly wandered away from his true nature under the effects of established secular and church authority. If man could remove himself from the effects of these restraining authorities & escape from the influences of ideas which sought only to repress his true inner self, then he could find himself.

Of course this is stated in a very general way. In reality a whole spectrum of opinions was to be found about the exact reasons for man's alienation & the cure for this. But the essential point for us I think was the idea that self-control in a context of obedience was the result only of prejudice and self-interested authority figures. Man's object, through all sorts of new social structures & modes of thought, was to be free; free first from what alienates and represses him; and then free to find himself.

Even the most casual understanding of our society reveals how much we still live with this legacy & how this relates to an Orthodox understanding of self-control, obedience & humility.

There's too much to go into here in any detail. But I'm not too sure how helpful it is for us to fall into the western dichotomy of liberal/conservative in which we defend that which is established only for the sake that it is established. After all in the framework of other discussions we freely admit that these established structures of the west are problematic.

Still though we all live in one kind of society or another. It's quite ironic that our understanding of society is actually more positive than those in the west influenced by theories of alienation. We pray for the society we live in and we try to participate in it responsibly even if radically differently at times from a western understanding of what it means to be responsible to others.

The point here though is that all the Fathers teach that the most needful thing for the world is its gradual transfiguration. This is achieved by a conscious participation in God's overall and providential plan for creation. And along with this we personally stake ourselves on an ascetic life which is the means through which Christ's Light is brought into this plan for creation amidst the everyday details of our lives.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Herman Blaydoe

16-07-2007, 05:22 PM

For me, the Orthodox "way" is specifically not one of "repression" but simply of, as Fr. Raphael says, transfiguration. Or rather, instead of "repressing" it is a question of REDIRECTING our energies, to that which edifies.

Effie Ganatsios

16-07-2007, 05:29 PM

"won't pray until it feels right."

Why wait until it feels right? Pray when it doesn't feel right. That's what true faith is all about. .....

Owen's right. Pray now..... Don't pay any attention to "feelings" because it's easy for us to be deceived by them. Belief, action and then feeling - I believe this is the right sequence.

Byron Jack Gaist

17-07-2007, 07:40 AM

Herman Blaydoe

17-07-2007, 01:31 PM

If we crudely replaced the word "transfiguration" with the word "sublimation", would Orthodoxy not sound a lot like psychoanalysis?

Just so. Are you familiar with Metropolitan Hierotheos' work, "Orthodox Psychotherapy"?

and if we turn our attention away from this fact, sin has the tendency to come back with double the force. That's what worries me!

That certainly should be a concern, but not a worry! The Fathers teach us that spiritual warfare is to the last breath. If we feel too comfortable, THAT is the time to be worried!

Your servant,
Herman

Fr Raphael Vereshack

17-07-2007, 02:48 PM

Byron wrote:

A redirection of energy, then, and a transfiguration of the will so that it actually comes to desire the good more than evil. Agreed that psychological ideas of "repression" have their historical origins as Fr Raphael describes; nevertheless, is the Church itself not party to a certain version of the theory of "alienation" - namely, is sin not an alienation from our true nature which is the image and likeness of God? If we crudely replaced the word "transfiguration" with the word "sublimation", would Orthodoxy not sound a lot like psychoanalysis?

But then the beginning and end points for us must be repentance which is based on humility. In other words the fault is due to us.

The theory of alienation and repression in its most virulent forms however is based on blaming (a passionate act in itself to blame) others. As I suggested yesterday I suspect its deeper motivation is a hatred of humility and repentance.

I'm afraid my question remains: what happens to all the 'dark stuff', the "energy of fallen passions" and the "passionate memories" Fr Raphael refers to, when we turn our attention away from these? Does this 'dark stuff' of the psyche just evaporate into thin air? Even if I don't use essentialist terms like 'psyche', the question becomes simply this: until we are actually perfect beyond improvement (which in my understanding is never), what are we going to do with all that fallen energy which incites us to sin? Simply ignore it and focus on virtue? Isn't that a bit optimistic?

I know we have the ascetic discipline and the sacraments. I know these things heal the personality. Yet even as we take Holy Communion, we are still part-sinner, and if we turn our attention away from this fact, sin has the tendency to come back with double the force. That's what worries me!

To not be optimistic is in itself sinful for it overlooks the Cross & Resurrection of Christ. Of course as you say the reality of sin is far more awesome and pervasive than we normally see. There is also a sinful blindness involved in this.

But to see sin correctly according to the Holy Frs we must grow in humility. Anything else in fact is a sinful perception of sin.

In humility we see sin in its proper perspective, we begin to understand what it is. And we also begin to see how Christ calls us to share in the solution with Him.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father David Moser

17-07-2007, 06:46 PM

I'm afraid my question remains: what happens to all the 'dark stuff', the "energy of fallen passions" and the "passionate memories" Fr Raphael refers to, when we turn our attention away from these? Does this 'dark stuff' of the psyche just evaporate into thin air? Even if I don't use essentialist terms like 'psyche', the question becomes simply this: until we are actually perfect beyond improvement (which in my understanding is never), what are we going to do with all that fallen energy which incites us to sin? Simply ignore it and focus on virtue? Isn't that a bit optimistic?

I know we have the ascetic discipline and the sacraments. I know these things heal the personality. Yet even as we take Holy Communion, we are still part-sinner, and if we turn our attention away from this fact, sin has the tendency to come back with double the force. That's what worries me!

Rather than utilize the psychodynamic model as an example of how we work out our salvation, let's for a moment, turn to the medical model. All of our sins can be understood as "wounds" to the soul, much in the same way that the body is wounded by cuts, scrapes, illnesses, broken bones, etc. If the wound is left untreated, it does not heal properly and can, in fact, become infected and continue to fester and grow worse so that not only does it not heal but harms the whole body. Sins, like bodily wounds, must be treated properly with the grace of God - this is where the ascetic disciplines and sacraments come in. If properly treated (according to the directions of Jesus Christ,our Spiritual Physician and Healer) these wounds to the soul will heal cleanly and without lasting harm. Initially, you will get some soreness and scabbing so that the wound itself - although treated and bound - remains a "tender spot". As time passes, it will be less tender and develop a scar. At first the scar is prominent and noticeable and the area is often prone to reinjury - but as time passes it becomes stronger, the injury is but a memory, the scar fades and becomes less prominent, reinjury is less of a danger. But if you broke your leg jumping off a cliff (for some fool reason) then if you do it again well - you might just get the same result, so you do have to learn from your mistakes.

The injury doesn't "go away" but with proper treatment, over time and with care, it does have less and less impact. The sins which are the most difficult for me to cope with are the ones which I repeat over and over thus reinjuring the same wound and never allowing it to heal (even if I treat it right away to avoid infection and promote healing - I defeat all that by reinjuring it).

Yes, if you use a psychodynamic model as an image of how the soul is healed - the spiritual remedy will end up looking/sounding a lot like the iconic model you have chosen. However if you change the model - the spiritual remedy is the same, but it is presented to us in a different form, one that has different characteristics and doesn't really resemble the previous iconic model.

Fr David Moser

Bratislav

17-07-2007, 06:48 PM

And I'm afraid that my answer may verge on oversimplifying things. The dark is replaced by God's Light, the energy of the passions replaced by the Uncreated Energy of the Almighty. As for memories, they may remain for a long time. But memories are like any other image and can be used for our benefit or our harm depending on our psychic state.

I'm afraid my question remains: what happens to all the 'dark stuff', the "energy of fallen passions" and the "passionate memories" Fr Raphael refers to, when we turn our attention away from these? Does this 'dark stuff' of the psyche just evaporate into thin air? Even if I don't use essentialist terms like 'psyche', the question becomes simply this: until we are actually perfect beyond improvement (which in my understanding is never), what are we going to do with all that fallen energy which incites us to sin? Simply ignore it and focus on virtue? Isn't that a bit optimistic?

Byron

Nina

17-07-2007, 10:05 PM

Dear Byron,

Elder Porphyrios in the book 'Wounded by Love' advises:

"Ignore evil. Look towards Christ and He will save you. Instead of standing outside the door shooing the evil one away treat him with disdain. If evil approaches from one direction, than calmly turn in the opposite direction. If evil comes to assault you, turn all your inner strength to good, to Christ. Pray, 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.' He knows how and in what way to have mercy on you."

"Do not fight to expel the darkness from the chamber of your soul. Open a tiny aperture for light to enter, and the darkness will disappear."

"It is not good to pray about or think about the specific passion. Attack your passion head on, and you will see how strongly it will entwine you and grip you and you won't be able to do anything. Don't struggle directly with temptation, don't pray for it to go away, don't say, 'Take it from me, O God!' Then you are acknowledging the strength of temptation and it takes hold of you. Because, although you are saying 'Take it from me, O God', basically you are bringing it to mind and fomenting it even more."

Additionally, about the 'dark stuff' that you mention, the Elder prescribes what he calls a 'general confession' - this means 'talking with your spiritual father about all your life, everything, all events since the time you can first remember: pleasant and unpleasant memories, sins and good things, successes and failures and how you reacted to them'. He says:

"I have often used this general confession and I have seen miracles worked through it. The moment you relate these things to you confessor, divine grace comes and frees you from all the unpleasant experiences and wounds, the psychological traumas and feelings of guilt, because while you are talking, your spiritual father is praying fervently to the Lord for you to be liberated from all these things."

This, what the Elder calls, 'divine psychoanalysis', is a balm for the soul because the grace of God is transmitted to the person through the spiritual father and his prayers. As the Elder says: "All spiritual fathers and confessors have this grace [from God] and when they pray they transmit it as conductors."

If you can, please read the book.

Paul Cowan

18-07-2007, 06:13 AM

Also try Unseen Warfare by Theophan the recluse and Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. Every point you are bringing up is very well discussed. Especially on Nina's points of fighting passions.

Paul

Byron Jack Gaist

18-07-2007, 08:38 AM

Dear Herman, Nina and Paul,

I own copies of 'Orthodox Psychotherapy' and 'Unseen Warfare'. I dip into the latter book at times, for the sheer power of the well-written passages, but it's obviously a book which merits careful study. The book by Hierotheos Vlachos is one I came to own and tried to read (in English translation) several years ago. I don't know if it's the quality of the translation which doesn't appeal to me (my parents are both English teachers), but something didn't 'click' so I never finished it; perhaps I should give it some more attention.

As for "Wounded by Love", it sounds a wonderful book, and I'll try to get hold of it. I read a book called "The Elder Porphyrios" by Kleitos Ioannides several years ago and remember how impressed I was, not only by the elder's Christian example, but also by his special insight and gifts.

Dear Fr David,

You are right to point out that many, very different, theoretical models can be applied to the process of our salvation, yet they remain essentially metaphors or ways of talking about a reality which we do not understand. As you may know from your own past experience, I think this is also true of what takes place in the consulting room between therapist and client - the client changes (as does the therapist at times), and theoretical explanations of what took place come after the event.

I like the "medical model" you suggest, because it identifies sins as wounds to the soul, even if we feel pleasure in committing them. This morning I accidentally came across the following quotation from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet
Wilt thou be gone? it is not yet near day:

It was the nightingale, and not the lark,

That pierc'd the fearful hollow of thine ear
It made me wonder what people's hearing was like back in the 16th century. Were their ears really "pierced" by the sound of the nightingale, or was the bard just being poetic? In any case, I know my own sensitivity to sound has been compromised by all the discos and night clubs I went to as a teenager and young man, especially in Cyprus where there seemed to be no regulation of the volume we were being exposed to.

Of course the reason I'm going on about this, is because I wonder if a soul at birth, or the soul of a person who has somehow not been too exposed to sin, is actually more sensitive and able to feel the wounding of sin to a greater intensity. I remember also an Orthodox speaker, I think it was Fr George Metallinos, who told a story about how the fox licked an iron file which cut its tongue, yet it thought the file was tasty because it caused the fox to drink its own blood. Orthodoxy teaches us perhaps that sin is like that iron file, something which damages us while simultaneously offering an illusion of pleasure. But how does one really see that, when the soul has grown insensitive and no longer realises the harm it is doing to itself?

Dear Fr Raphael,

While I'm not well-read in history or a professional historian, it seems to my limited knowledge a historically valid viewpoint to suggest that modern theories of alienation are based on a hatred, or at least rejection of, Christian humility and repentance.
Basically such theories felt that man over the ages had increasingly wandered away from his true nature under the effects of established secular and church authority. If man could remove himself from the effects of these restraining authorities & escape from the influences of ideas which sought only to repress his true inner self, then he could find himself.
Nowadays we have reached the postmodern thesis that anything can mean anything, and even to speak of such a thing as our "true nature" is rejected as a valid epistemological enterprise. Nevertheless, while I believe there has to be something like a true human nature and even perhaps a true individual nature of each of us as persons, I hesitate to identify that in an arbitrary way with what the Fathers call the 'image and likeness of God'; this, not because I don't want to trust the Holy Fathers, but because I'd like to know in a deep and confident way what it is they really mean. Am I seeking to know so I can believe, instead of believing, so I may come to know?

In Christ
Byron

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-07-2007, 04:25 PM

Byron wrote:

Nowadays we have reached the postmodern thesis that anything can mean anything, and even to speak of such a thing as our "true nature" is rejected as a valid epistemological enterprise.

Wow! I try to keep up with the state of the world. But I didn't know things had gone that far. In our terms to reject our 'true nature' is embracing nothingness. This helps explains the number of devastated personalities we now encounter within our parishes. These, one gets a strong sense, are only a microcosm of the larger picture of the present condition of the world.

Byron continues:

Nevertheless, while I believe there has to be something like a true human nature and even perhaps a true individual nature of each of us as persons, I hesitate to identify that in an arbitrary way with what the Fathers call the 'image and likeness of God'; this, not because I don't want to trust the Holy Fathers, but because I'd like to know in a deep and confident way what it is they really mean. Am I seeking to know so I can believe, instead of believing, so I may come to know?

I think this ties in with the above. The image and likeness within man refers to his natural faculties. These connect with St Maximus the Confessors' description of man as microcosm of the created universe. What he means is that within man which inherently relates to communion with all that is both created & uncreated. But of course this communion only occurs in so far as man grows within Christ.

How this is made manifest on the individual level however I think is through the person. Man is made to find himself in Christ not so much as unique but rather as an individual microcosm which sums up God's providential plan for mankind. Consequently the rejection of this has always led to a fundamental distortion of what and who man is created to be. But our particular situation now is a culture which consciously holds as its chief value the abandonment of man's nature. The result is a way of life which leads to the devastation of his nature and person, a true touching of the abyss of nothingness held up as a cultural value.

If sin creates a mental fog difficult to pierce through, so much the more is it difficult to pierce through the fog of a culture which actually treasures nothingness in so many forms. Because man is a sentient being who desires and creates he never comes to the Church as a clean slate. Desiring to convert he still carries deep within himself acquired habits of desire which are extremely difficult to overcome. This is so because the Church not only has to deal with sinful craving (it always has) but the modern notion that these cravings are one's right and self-definition.

An aspect of this is the accompanying modern idea that life is a set of equal & almost infinite choices, a never ending opportunity for the will to be the centre of the universe and pursue and satisfy every craving. Intellectually we may accept that what the Church offers is a choice between life or death; but we have great difficulty overcoming what is actually an addiction to a never ceasing exertion of the will for its own sake. Having tasted this forbidden fruit for so long & being surrounded after all by a culture which defines itself in this way, a fierce and subtle battle against oneself has to be undertaken in order to restrain & overcome this demon.

Set beside society's place of worship - a shopping mall which offers infinite choices, activities and kinds of worship secular & otherwise- the ascetic modesty of many of our churches face a daunting challenge. If we consistently point to the real cost of the shopping centre culture however- the absolute destruction of the human being- and relate this to man's true nature as found within Christ and the Church then some may turn towards what is godly.

Of course this too we cannot control since we cannot replace one kind of worldly salesmanship with another. ('shop here our candy's better than theirs). But then we can realize that understanding is given not to exalt oneself but rather to offer oneself for the sake of the world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Paul Cowan

19-07-2007, 03:08 AM

Byron wrote:

It made me wonder what people's hearing was like back in the 16th century. Were their ears really "pierced" by the sound of the nightingale, or was the bard just being poetic? In any case, I know my own sensitivity to sound has been compromised by all the discos and night clubs I went to as a teenager and young man, especially in Cyprus where there seemed to be no regulation of the volume we were being exposed to. bold mine

if a soul at birth, or the soul of a person who has somehow not been too exposed to sin, is actually more sensitive and able to feel the wounding of sin to a greater intensity.

Answer: YES!

As an example, look at a youth gang member. He is brought up in (more times than not) a not so desirable home setting. He/she seeks out acceptance. He/she finds it. He is told to do things that start off, not too bad for his conscience or body. As he/she becomes more bold with his successful exploits/ peer pressure, he ventures out to more dangerous activities.

As he does these things, robbery, drugs, rape, burglary etc...he finds he can do them more and more easily and since others are also doing them, it must be the norm. In reality, he has gone off the deep end and will have a tremendous time coming back to center. If he ever can.

I have seen those that have come back to center and when they realize what they have done and how they have hurt others, they are truly repentent with tears. I have also seen those that go away to prison to get their "college degree" in worse activities.

What's the difference? Not the actions. Perhaps the age they ventured away from a "safe" home setting? An elementary child recruited into a gang has more exposure to hurt at a younger age and may turn out cold and hard. Compared to a teen who runs away from home and does things to survive on the street knowing they are wrong.

A gang member gets his/her "respect" from what he does to or has done to him. Get shot by someone, go to the top of the class. Kill someone, teach the class.

So is sin relative to the person? I say yes.

Paul

Andrew

19-07-2007, 06:17 AM

Dear Fr Raphael, Dear Herman,

Thank you both for your interesting posts, especially Fr Raphael's which is full of reminders of points which are important to the Orthodox journey.

A redirection of energy, then, and a transfiguration of the will so that it actually comes to desire the good more than evil. Agreed that psychological ideas of "repression" have their historical origins as Fr Raphael describes; nevertheless, is the Church itself not party to a certain version of the theory of "alienation" - namely, is sin not an alienation from our true nature which is the image and likeness of God? If we crudely replaced the word "transfiguration" with the word "sublimation", would Orthodoxy not sound a lot like psychoanalysis?

I'm afraid my question remains: what happens to all the 'dark stuff', the "energy of fallen passions" and the "passionate memories" Fr Raphael refers to, when we turn our attention away from these? Does this 'dark stuff' of the psyche just evaporate into thin air? Even if I don't use essentialist terms like 'psyche', the question becomes simply this: until we are actually perfect beyond improvement (which in my understanding is never), what are we going to do with all that fallen energy which incites us to sin? Simply ignore it and focus on virtue? Isn't that a bit optimistic?

I know we have the ascetic discipline and the sacraments. I know these things heal the personality. Yet even as we take Holy Communion, we are still part-sinner, and if we turn our attention away from this fact, sin has the tendency to come back with double the force. That's what worries me!

In Christ
Byron

The first thing my spiritual father will hammer into me is that it is God who is saving us. We are sinners, but we trust in His mercy and grace will fill us and heal us.

The energy of sin in some areas decreases with time. In other areas it might double, triple, quadruple, etc., and you might even have to fight it on your deathbed! This is a struggle! But Our Lord is with us, and He grants us the grace to fight on, and when we fall He will come to our aid and heal us. Have you read Monastic Wisdom by Elder Joseph?

This is another thing my spiritual father repeats over and over to me... this is a battle that will go on for a long time, and that most of the time we don't receive the big payoff of dispassion and victory over the passions until we reach the latter years of life. But we gets little tastes of it. We receive grace; sometimes we are aware of it and sometimes not.

God is out to guard our humility and save us. When we fall, we can trust that He is there to both forgive us and strengthen us to fight harder in the future. All our falls are there to humble us. We can be saved if we are humble! It's better to be a wretched yet humble sinner than a man who does everything "correctly" but has a little drop of pride.

Like Elder Joseph said in one of his letters (I think I am paraphrasing), "When ascending Golgotha, it is impossible not to stumble and fall!"

And to answer the question on where the dark stuff goes... we no longer care about it, and it is just a little background noise that can be ignored. That is what I take from reading the words of the Elders.

I would second Nina's recommendation of Wounded By Love.

Byron Jack Gaist

19-07-2007, 08:57 AM

Dear Andrew,

God is out to guard our humility and save us. When we fall, we can trust that He is there to both forgive us and strengthen us to fight harder in the future. All our falls are there to humble us. We can be saved if we are humble! It's better to be a wretched yet humble sinner than a man who does everything "correctly" but has a little drop of pride.
To me, what you write here is one of the things that makes Christianity special. Regarding God being there to forgive us and strengthen us to fight harder in the future, I am troubled by the following words of St. Innocent of Alaska (on this website):
But take care not to disdain the grace of God! Pitying you, Jesus Christ knocks for a long time at the door of your heart, waiting for your decision to save yourself. But woe to you if He, tiring of waiting, turns His face away from you, as a hopeless son or daughter of perdition. Then no one, neither the most powerful and influential person, nor all the angels in heaven, will be able to help you!
This, along with the idea that to sin against the Holy Spirit is irrevocable, makes me really worried, perhaps even despairing. Have you any thoughts on this?

Dear Paul,

Actually, thinking about it, it's certainly true and probably has a scriptural basis to claim that the heart is hardened through sin, and never as pure and innocent as in childhood. May there nevertheless be value in faith which survives the furnace of experience? Is Adam before the fall somehow less mature than Adam after the Resurrection?

Is there also a sense of innocence which cannot be lost, even after committing the most heinous crimes? Monstrous as this suggestion may seem from our human perspective (what could be 'innocent' in Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson etc), is it worth believing that, with God, everything is possible? But the thought still troubles me that certain sins are so grave, that there will not be enough years in a man's life to make up for them, and this innocence once lost, can never be recovered as a 'return to centre'. You seem to suggest this too, when you write
In reality, he has gone off the deep end and will have a tremendous time coming back to center. If he ever can.

Dear Fr Raphael,

You write:
The image and likeness within man refers to his natural faculties. These connect with St Maximus the Confessors' description of man as microcosm of the created universe. What he means is that within man which inherently relates to communion with all that is both created & uncreated. But of course this communion only occurs in so far as man grows within Christ.

How this is made manifest on the individual level however I think is through the person. Man is made to find himself in Christ not so much as unique but rather as an individual microcosm which sums up God's providential plan for mankind. Consequently the rejection of this has always led to a fundamental distortion of what and who man is created to be. "Communion with all that is created and uncreated" seems like a way of saying we are part of an interconnected whole. We tend to think of ourselves as individual units, yet this is neither our nature nor the truth about our ontology. And St Maximus is going beyond that, in saying that furthermore, this connection to the material and spiritual cosmos is established and maintained by Christ, Who is the centre of all Being, and our means of remaining in tune with existence. It's not so much that we are unique or indispensable in ourselves, as that we are beings commissioned with carrying out God's providential plan for mankind. Therefore, our life is not
a never ending opportunity for the will to be the centre of the universe and pursue and satisfy every craving Our life is in fact an opportunity to cultivate the harmonious coincidence of our will with God's. Is this what you are trying to say, or have I misunderstood it? If it is, the mere thought that I am not unique or special, or an absolute value of some sort in myself, is terrifying and depressing. yet there are many things in life which point to this perhaps being the case, like the gradual progression of loss, disappointment, shattered dreams, which 'growing up' entails. We become, if we're decent in any way, increasingly disposed to think of our lives and our plans as something relative, something which is part of a bigger picture, and only a 'success' or 'failure' inasmuch as we have significantly contributed in a positive way to such a 'bigger picture'. All of which makes me feel very small and rather useless, I confess.

In Christ
Byron

Celinda Grace

19-07-2007, 02:43 PM

But take care not to disdain the grace of God! Pitying you, Jesus Christ knocks for a long time at the door of your heart, waiting for your decision to save yourself. But woe to you if He, tiring of waiting, turns His face away from you, as a hopeless son or daughter of perdition. Then no one, neither the most powerful and influential person, nor all the angels in heaven, will be able to help you!

I think this needs to be understood in the larger framework of how God works. Jesus does not tire of waiting for us. How can we say the God's patience is anything less then infinite? Yet if we look at the history of Israel we see that there are times when He did indeed turn His face from them. But for what purpose? Always it is with the purpose of allowing them to suffer the consequences of their rejection of Him in order to bring them to repentance.

God designed us so that every time we turn away from Him we wound ourselves and so turn back and seek for the solution to our pain. If it were not for this inbuilt mechanism there would have been no way for God to rescue us from our fall. We would wander away and never care.
Hosea 5:15 I will go away and return to My place until they acknowledge their guilt and seek My face; In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me.

But the thought still troubles me that certain sins are so grave, that there will not be enough years in a man's life to make up for them, and this innocence once lost, can never be recovered as a 'return to centre'.

The message of the cross is the message of redemption and transformation. Over and over in the Bible, over and over in my own life I have seen it. God takes Satan's plans and turns them for His own glory. God takes our own failings and falls and in repentance and faith they are turned to His glory. Would Paul have been so humble or receptive to those outside the Jewish faith and Law if he had not been so humilitated by His zealous persecutions of the Christians in the name of the Law?

We look at the sin in our lives and think that it is our job to conquer it. But in reality our job is to accept ourselves as sinners and in humility surrender to the help we find in God. As I said above God uses our wounds to humble us.

Those wounds also provide an open place for Satan to attack us. He accuses us and tries to bring us to despair. He tries to use our feeling of helplessness and hopelessness over our woundedness to get us to abandon God and the help we could recieve. Our real vicory lies less in overcoming our sin and more in allowing ourselves to be brought to a disposition of repentance, humility and unfailing faith and hope in the love and power of God working in our lives.

Rom 8:31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-07-2007, 04:43 PM

Byron wrote:

Our life is in fact an opportunity to cultivate the harmonious coincidence of our will with God's. Is this what you are trying to say, or have I misunderstood it?

Yes, this is along the lines of what I was trying to say.

If it is, the mere thought that I am not unique or special, or an absolute value of some sort in myself, is terrifying and depressing. yet there are many things in life which point to this perhaps being the case, like the gradual progression of loss, disappointment, shattered dreams, which 'growing up' entails. We become, if we're decent in any way, increasingly disposed to think of our lives and our plans as something relative, something which is part of a bigger picture, and only a 'success' or 'failure' inasmuch as we have significantly contributed in a positive way to such a 'bigger picture'. All of which makes me feel very small and rather useless, I confess.

Reality is often a dreadful and frightening thing. Once having recognized the impermanence of this world the conventional security blankets scarcely work anymore. Their temporary pleasure is made even more bitter by the sure knowledge that these too will fade away.

Left to itself this reality is nothing else than tragic for the impermanence we sense in things is the result of something very real which is death. And this certainly leads to our sense of insignificance or to being cast adrift. As said in the past few days this sense is accentuated by our present condition as a society, culture & a people.

Rather though than the normal (at least for me) 'but on the other hand' which we have all spoken about previously I'd just like to end at least for now with what is noted here.

Yes there is an answer in and though Christ to our situation. But many times we paper over 'the situation' of death and distance from Christ with our answer.

If Christ is the cure to death and our present situation involves neglect both of Christ and our own condition then a good dose of reality may be in order. Maybe for the Church's cure to sink in we first need to take more time in understanding what afflicts us and its full horror and pain.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

19-07-2007, 11:52 PM

Dear Father Raphael and others, you wrote:

Reality is often a dreadful and frightening thing. Once having recognized the impermanence of this world the conventional security blankets scarcely work anymore. Their temporary pleasure is made even more bitter by the sure knowledge that these too will fade away.

An interesting parallel in your words to the portion of St Innocent's text we were reading last week:
"Innumerable other wise people who were also successful in life came to the same conclusion. It seems that in the depth of our subconscious something reminds us that we are just wanderers on this earth and that our true happiness is not here but there, in that other and better world known as Paradise or the Heavenly Kingdom. Let man own the whole world and everything that is in it, yet all this will interest him for no more than a short period, while the immortal soul, thirsting for personal communication with God, will remain unsatisfied."
Part of the tragedy, I think, is that the person becomes so convinced of the finality and ultimate reality of the material world and its foibles, that the traps it sets and the chains with which it binds are perceived as being 'The Real' - the absolute set of parameters that define human existence. And so the foibles of fallen reality become the framework of existence, and the hopelessness of the sinful becomes the hopelessness of everything. What are, in the perception of Christ, falls ripe for redemption, become in such a perspective immovable barriers of tragedy, which lead to despair. As you write:

Left to itself this reality is nothing else than tragic for the impermanence we sense in things is the result of something very real which is death. And this certainly leads to our sense of insignificance or to being cast adrift. As said in the past few days this sense is accentuated by our present condition as a society, culture & a people.Even this death is mis-perceived. It becomes a thing that frames in a 'pointless existence', because it reveals a meaningless impermanence, an ultimate tragic end to all things.

This is the great power of the words in the scriptures: 'O grave, where is thy power? O death, where is thy sting?' The resurrection of Christ reveals the the impermanence of the things that seem most permanent, and frames all in the perspective of redemption and transfiguration. The things that seem most tragic become things of least concern. Death is not a horror, not a 'tragedy' in the epic sense - of all coming to naught. It has already been defeated. And things the world deems insignificant - virtue, struggle with passions, etc. - are shown up as most important, life-changing.

INXC, Matthew

Andreas Moran

20-07-2007, 02:11 AM

As my late first wife, shortly before her soul's ascent to paradise, put it in her dry Yorkshire manner, 'I'll not be missing much'.

Byron Jack Gaist

20-07-2007, 08:53 AM

Dear all,

In pointing out the impermanence of our earthly existence, and the illusory nature of what we come to deem as "real" through the sheer habitual force of our sensory experience, the above few posts have a paradoxically life-affirming quality. It's so refreshingly liberating when , as Matthew has suggested
the person becomes so convinced of the finality and ultimate reality of the material world and its foibles, that the traps it sets and the chains with which it binds are perceived as being 'The Real' - the absolute set of parameters that define human existence.we can then at least imagine that the mind builds a model of "reality" according to its experience and innate inclinations, yet Christianity offers us a way of putting this mere model into perspective, a way 'out' of mundane reality in fact: nothing is what it seems to be, even death.

Regarding the power of death, Fr Raphael writes:
Left to itself this reality is nothing else than tragic for the impermanence we sense in things is the result of something very real which is death. And this certainly leads to our sense of insignificance or to being cast adrift. As said in the past few days this sense is accentuated by our present condition as a society, culture & a people I would like to clarify whether this is a response to my initial comment that
the mere thought that I am not unique or special, or an absolute value of some sort in myself, is terrifying and depressing. yet there are many things in life which point to this perhaps being the case, like the gradual progression of loss, disappointment, shattered dreams, which 'growing up' entails If Fr Raphael, you are responding to this, then perhaps you saw something I was not aware of at the time of writing. Are you saying that behind the affront to our pride, to our sense of uniqueness and 'specialness', that the inexorable progression of life brings with it by gradually stripping away our dreams and aspirations (as well as our physical stature), is in fact a fear of death - that by the painful process of living we are being forced to face death in stages? If so, this is certainly an aspect of what I was writing about. What I consciously had in mind, however, was not the fear of death, but the terror of having to learn to replace the idea of oneself as sovereign ego - an 'I' with a unique destiny and an indivisible core - with a sort of diverse inner microcosm which is part of a larger universal collectivity and ultimately centred not in 'me' but in Christ, so that in order to find out what 'my' true nature wills, I must identify the Will of God and do that, instead of whatever my small ego may be suggesting at the time.
Man is made to find himself in Christ not so much as unique but rather as an individual microcosm which sums up God's providential plan for mankind. I'm not sure if I'm not reading too much into this, however. But certainly even thinking that I am not only insignificant in this fallen world to my fellow men, but also in the 'next world' I am 'only' part of a bigger Divine plan - these thoughts are very scary. It is like the difference between the pleasant fantasy that one is somehow an unrecognised genius, and the painful (and, it seems to me, unjust) thought that where one is at, is in fact all that one is.

In Christ
Byron

P.S. I am going on holiday, and will be away from the forum for a week or so, but look forward to reading all the responses when I return!

Owen Jones

20-07-2007, 01:44 PM

The fear of being nothing -- the hole in the donut -- in the presence of God, is the fear of a false self which is proven when we actually do surrender our lives to God and experience the fullness that results. It is a theoretical fear, that is cast out by the very real and practical alternative that one knows when one puts Christian spiritual principles into practice. If left untreated, this theoretical fear leads to a clinging to things as a form of resistance. INcluded in these "things" that we cling to is the world of ideas that the intellect uses to defend itself against any threat of loss of control. The self-centered intellect revels in the world of theoretical ideas.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-07-2007, 04:17 PM

Byron wrote:

Are you saying that behind the affront to our pride, to our sense of uniqueness and 'specialness', that the inexorable progression of life brings with it by gradually stripping away our dreams and aspirations (as well as our physical stature), is in fact a fear of death - that by the painful process of living we are being forced to face death in stages? If so, this is certainly an aspect of what I was writing about. What I consciously had in mind, however, was not the fear of death, but the terror of having to learn to replace the idea of oneself as sovereign ego - an 'I' with a unique destiny and an indivisible core - with a sort of diverse inner microcosm which is part of a larger universal collectivity and ultimately centred not in 'me' but in Christ, so that in order to find out what 'my' true nature wills, I must identify the Will of God and do that, instead of whatever my small ego may be suggesting at the time. I'm not sure if I'm not reading too much into this, however. But certainly even thinking that I am not only insignificant in this fallen world to my fellow men, but also in the 'next world' I am 'only' part of a bigger Divine plan - these thoughts are very scary. It is like the difference between the pleasant fantasy that one is somehow an unrecognised genius, and the painful (and, it seems to me, unjust) thought that where one is at, is in fact all that one is.

I was responding more to the latter than the former. And as I encounter this so often as a priest in dealing with my own people I thought it best to stop there as it were rather than try to give an answer.

After all the reality is that many, many struggle with this in different ways. It is in this struggle that issues of the Faith most directly touch people in their involvement in the Church. Many have confusion, pain and frustration over their seeming inability to overcome what they recognize is the smallest part of themselves.

So it is best perhaps at times to go just one step at a time in terms of what so many struggle with. By yesterday I was beginning to feel like one of Job's friends- sometimes an answer is just to listen & pause for awhile.

Of course what is being said by all is correct though. The real fear involved in replacing one's self-centredness with Christ largely focuses on the illusion of the self in the first place. The more we place ourselves at the centre the more real the stage we live on becomes to us. The fear is real and so seems the reality we live in. But its unreality is demonstrated first in how surely it will betray us. In other words what we take for reality, what we have invested in and has become our treasure, always has an illusory quality to it. Many in fact come to live in a world of half admitted falseness to themselves in order to maintain the charade. Still though this must have a particular power to it since our culture can basically define itself on this illusory charade without disowning it.

I think a lot of this then comes down to how our will reacts to this. Not entirely perhaps, but partly, we sense the falseness of what we are involved in. It's precisely at this point that the edifice of falseness is most weak. But we must for the sake of Christ and ourselves exploit this weakness in courage and not listen to the fear which bids us stop. This is very important and I would even say our whole life in Christ goes forward or not according to these inner decisions.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andrew

20-07-2007, 07:02 PM

Dear Andrew,

To me, what you write here is one of the things that makes Christianity special. Regarding God being there to forgive us and strengthen us to fight harder in the future, I am troubled by the following words of St. Innocent of Alaska (on this website): This, along with the idea that to sin against the Holy Spirit is irrevocable, makes me really worried, perhaps even despairing. Have you any thoughts on this?

If something causes you to despair, don't read or listen to it! Again, God is all merciful. When you are down and heading towards despair, meditate on God's immense love for you, and how He is enacting your salvation at this very moment.

Sometimes in the Fathers we come across passages that reflect on our ability to lose grace and salvation. Do not focus upon these passages when you are down! They are more for when we have a cooling of zeal, laziness, and a lack of love for God. They are to spur us on towards repentance, fight our own pride, and gain contrition of heart. When we are in a state of despair, it is the love of God we need, not fear of Hell.

Remember... Keep thy mind in Hell and despair not. If you find that you are despairing, inch back from the abyss and "enjoy a cup of tea." But spiritually, this cup of tea is the Love of God. But when you are again fortified by His love, again inch towards the abyss of Hell, but this time with the firm hope in the Presence and love of Christ.

This is warfare! A little bit of strategy is needed. It is of no help to read instruction manuals on sieging the enemy when it is time for an evasive manuever!

M.C. Steenberg

22-07-2007, 09:59 PM

Above, Owen wrote:

The fear of being nothing -- the hole in the donut -- in the presence of God, is the fear of a false self which is proven when we actually do surrender our lives to God and experience the fullness that results. It is a theoretical fear, that is cast out by the very real and practical alternative that one knows when one puts Christian spiritual principles into practice. If left untreated, this theoretical fear leads to a clinging to things as a form of resistance. INcluded in these "things" that we cling to is the world of ideas that the intellect uses to defend itself against any threat of loss of control. The self-centered intellect revels in the world of theoretical ideas.

I find these very perceptive comments - for which, thanks.

The raising of the issue of theoretical fears and the dwelling in theoretical ideas (here using the modern sense, of 'speculative, wondering', rather than the old theological sense of much of the Greek fathers, namely a perception of genuine theoria, or the true nature of things), is helpful. It is this realm of the theoretical, of 'what if?' questions, that so often stunts or altogether prevents spiritual advance. The same is just as true in interpersonal relationships: one fears love for all the theoretical difficulties or problems it may pose, etc. But theoretical intellectual wanderings ultimately prevent one from making real steps toward progress, while at the same time feeding the mind and heart with a kind of drug that distracts them from even wanting to do so.

INXC, Matthew

Eugenia Lydia

23-07-2007, 01:23 AM

Dear Dr. Steenberg,

In your last post, you made a distinction between "clinging to the world of ideas that the intellect uses to defend itself [from Owen's post]" and the dwelling in the realm of "genuine theoria"as the Father's understand this:

The raising of the issue of theoretical fears and the dwelling in theoretical ideas (here using the modern sense, of 'speculative, wondering', rather than the old theological sense of much of the Greek fathers, namely a perception of genuine theoria, or the true nature of things), is helpful. It is this realm of the theoretical, of 'what if?' questions, that so often stunts or altogether prevents spiritual advance. [/quote]

I wonder if you might make this distinction more clearly and give some direction as to how one might avoid the first. I am particularly interested in the implied connection you made between the former and "speculation, wonder", "what-if" theology, perhaps because of personal experience. My priest often answers my questions by quoting his teacher from seminary, who said: " 'What-if theology is stinking theology." While I certainly agree that there must be a distinction between speculation for its own sake, or the delight solely in the workings of the mind as opposed to the objects of thought, and a genuine perception of what is real, I hesitate to make the distinguishing feature of self-centered speculation the use of "what-if" or its designation as being speculative. One of the ways we understand the full weight and import of our ideas, that we avoid having a divided mind, is to test some of our ideas against others, often done by asking "what if such and such were different? Would the outcome be as I expect it, or as the Church teaches it must be, etc.? " And also, it seems like much of the writings of the Fathers venture into the realm of what we would call speculation (I am thinking of Maximus actually, who seems to admit as much). So, then, maybe we should be more clear about what speculation means, if we are going to use it in a perjorative sense, else we throw out the baby with that bathwater. It might also be helpful to those who, like me, are in need of some guidance so as to avoid being "lost in abstraction."

Thank you and Owen for your very thought-provoking posts.

In Christ,
Eugenia

P.S. Should all of this be in a new thread? I confess that I don't really understand the topic of this thread, but I know that I haven't mentioned sin or its seeming inescapability.

Father David Moser

23-07-2007, 06:42 PM

I wonder if a soul at birth, or the soul of a person who has somehow not been too exposed to sin, is actually more sensitive and able to feel the wounding of sin to a greater intensity. I remember also an Orthodox speaker, I think it was Fr George Metallinos, who told a story about how the fox licked an iron file which cut its tongue, yet it thought the file was tasty because it caused the fox to drink its own blood. Orthodoxy teaches us perhaps that sin is like that iron file, something which damages us while simultaneously offering an illusion of pleasure. But how does one really see that, when the soul has grown insensitive and no longer realises the harm it is doing to itself?

This is, I think, a very important observation. We live in a world and culture in which we are increasingly bombarded from the moment of our birth to the instant of our death with sensual images and temptations designed to play upon the passions which are within us. In many cases because of this over-exposure, we have become desensitized to the presence and effect of sin in our lives. The parable of the fox and file is really quite applicable. But the question is not does this happen - for we know that it does - but rather how can we restore our awareness of and sensitivity to sin in our lives; how can we escape the numbness of soul brought on by the onslaught of the world.

The answer to this question is found within the life of the Church. Part of the numbness and loss of sensitivity is due to the lack of any real contrast between the righteous life and the sinful life. In order to restore that contrast, we need to become familiar with the reality of righteousness. Thus it is essential to read and reread the lives of the saints. And when we read it must be with faith and belief, not discounting the events of their lives as hagiographical exaggerations but rather embracing them as the true experiences of real people who are the standard by which we measure ourselves. These lives may seem to be at times a bit unreal, but if we accept them as true and read with faith, the unreality fades and we enter into a different world - a world wherein the constant bombardment of sensual temptation is diminished and instead we are exposed to the light of Christ.

Once we have reestablished a sharper contrast in our lives, we can then begin to reorder our lives through the practice of the Church. The ascetic tradition of the Church is vital here. By fasting (active and purposeful self denial), not only from food but from all that which severs or clouds our communication with God, we actively avoid those things which are ever presently harmful. Our soul is numbed not by the absence of stimulation, but by the over-stimulation of the passions. Because we are so over exposed to the passionate and sensual stimuli, the discernment of the soul is over loaded and just "shuts down". When we fast, we cut off the major and obvious sources of stimulation - food, entertainments, distractions, and so on. This reduces the overload and gives the soul a chance to recover. In addition to fasting, we also must practice vigilance (watchfulness, the keeping of vigil) so that not only do we reduce our voluntary intake of sensation but we also watch for and avoid and turn away from the sources of involuntary pollution. We limit what the eyes see, what the ears hear, what we touch, what we read, the music that we listen to, etc. We cut off the television, the magazines, the internet and so on to avoid even more of the passionate overload. This allows the sensitivity of the soul to sin to recover, to take advantage of the sharper contrast.

An aside here - I used to have a business partner who is involved in a new age pagan religion. Her religious teacher put her on a rigorous fast for a whole year (like keeping Great Lent for the entire year rather than just for 7 weeks). She and I would often talk about our spiritual lives and during this time we both noticed that after fasting for an extended period, the soul, and even the body, feels lighter, more aware and alive, more sensitive to the world around. This is not just a "christian" effect, but it is simply the natural effect of cutting off the torrent of sensation in which we live. For us, this "natural" effect is empowered and enhanced by the grace of God.

That then leads us to the next step and that is the acquisition of the grace of the Holy Spirit. It is not sufficient to just "cut off" the torrent of passionate stimuli to the soul, but we must also then retrain the soul and empower it by reorienting ourselves to the grace of God. This is acquired through the many grace filled practices of the Church. For our purposes here I will mention the three most obvious and important - prayer, almsgiving, and participation in the sacraments. Prayer is not so much about the prayer rule itself (although the rule of prayer is a tool of prayer) rather prayer is communion with God. The words of the prayers that we have from the Church and the rule of prayer that we follow in the practical tradition of the Church are all designed to bring us into the presence of God. The "prayers" are not in and of themselves "prayer" but they do bring us into the state of prayer. Living in continual communion with God is the best and most pervasive method of developing the soul. Therefore those prayers which lead us into continual prayer (such as the Jesus prayer) are vital for the health ofthe soul. Almsgiving is also a source of great grace for through it we begin to harmonize ourselves with God's compassionate lovingkindness. In this manner we most clearly act in concert with God and we most clearly express and exhibit His love for the world. Thirdly the sacraments, and especially the Mystery of Holy Communion, are the avenues by which God pours out grace upon us in an especially concentrated and useful form.

All of these things - to increase the spiritual contrast in our lives by reading the lives of the saints with faith; to decrease the overload of passionate sensual stimulation to the soul by fasting and vigilance;and the strengthening of the soul through prayer, almsgiving and participation in the sacraments are the means by which the insensitivity of the soul is counteracted and corrected.

Fr David Moser

C. Christoph

15-07-2008, 01:19 AM

Hi. I am a recent intellectual convert to the doctrines of Orthodoxy and I hope next month to enter the Catechumenate with my wife and our two daughters.

I guess that this topic can relate to any sin which someone deals with which seems to be unbreakable in their life, but my personal issue is that of internet pornography. There are times when I have long periods of aviodance, and then there are times when it is every day for maybe two or three days. I am just trying to be honest here to get some honest advice, so I apologize for the bluntness, but, I can usually avoid masturbation, though not always. So, perhahps if someone has any advice for this whole area of sexual sin in particular, or maybe this could just become a thread for dealing with passions in general. Whatever happens...

I have read so much about the ascetic life and how this helps us to learn to ignore and deny our sinful passsions, but I am new to this and not very good at it yet. Plus, it is much harder to be an ascetic as laity rather than as a monastic. I think St. John Climacus said that the laity can achieve the same asceticism but it will be as though he has chains around his feet. I keep thinking that I would be better off to become Orthodox and then go and be a monk where there are not so many worldy distractions to get me off course, but, I know that at this time in my life I have a young family and so the monastic life is not what God has chosen to give me. What can a young, 22 year old, hot-blooded American guy do about this? My greatest desire is to be able to one day conquer my passions and truly be able to look only to heavenly things, but it is so hard. Any recommended books, anything...I will soon be getting The Ladder of Divine Ascent, and another book I found originally in Russian called How to Live a Holy Life... Help...

I have not read every single reply in this huge and very interesting discussion. However, the advise I always get given and try to remember as often as possible is to combine optimism with acceptance in a positive ongoing effort... This might make little sense, but let me explain further - if anything, to remind myself again... Whether enjoying " long periods of avoidance", or suffering "times when it is every day for maybe two or three days" optimism is required (cultivating a living remembrance of God's infinite love, providence and mercy). Getting depressed about a torturous passion under the guise of 'repentance' (as Father Aimilianos of Simonos Petra used to often repeat) means the enemy is finding a way to remove the Joy (a most significant and invaluable helper along with courage) that is a prerequisite and a proof of true and decisive, lifelong repentance and (this depression) does not help in the long run - but proves our ego is 'hurt' and that we will certainly fall again. This repentance and change might seem as impossible as it did to Saint Mary of Egypt but we have to believe that, even if we have this slavery for the rest of our earthly life, God will save us and take us at the best time possible. A lifelong, well-cultivated passion like the one we suffer from, needs decades of both feeding all that is good and starving all that is carnal in our souls, and this when one is a monk, so living in the world and demanding to reach that dispassion and pure view of the opposite sex in a year or a decade is almost a crazy expectation, like wanting to get a pension at age 17 having worked for just one month...
So, accepting our weakness, while obviously trying our best to' feed' our love for the Lord while not giving in to our desires as much as we can, as well as ignoring all thoughts and 'lingering' when we do have a 'fall' is a more practical advise I get given.

We should never give up. This constant struggle IS fruitful even if it feels otherwise. It's another take on Saint Silouan's 'keep thy mind in hell and despair not"

Elder Porphyrios has some invaluable quotes in his books about dealing with these struggles in this way...

in Christ

Peter S.

25-07-2008, 11:15 PM

I Getting depressed about a torturous passion under the guise of 'repentance' (as Father Aimilianos of Simonos Petra used to often repeat) means the enemy is finding a way to remove the Joy (a most significant and invaluable helper along with courage) that is a prerequisite and a proof of true and decisive, lifelong repentance and (this depression) does not help in the long run - but proves our ego is 'hurt' and that we will certainly fall again.

We should never give up. This constant struggle IS fruitful even if it feels otherwise. It's another take on Saint Silouan's 'keep thy mind in hell and despair not"

Elder Porphyrios has some invaluable quotes in his books about dealing with these struggles in this way...

in Christ
Hi C.Christoph!

So true. Thanks for your excellent post. The repentance must be true, and having the right motives, and not be feeded or feeding our "ego" ,or selflove or by "glory from men", which is hiding behind the 'repentance', because we are living in a world that is full of that, and are FEEDED with that every day, if we are not struggling for the opposite; glory from God. ( Jesus says something about this in John 8,50, I see in OSB). John also also writes about this in John 12,43 .

Joy is very important, and we shall always have good courage, even if our repentance is "not in the right manner".

I understood the meaning of St. Silouans words "keep thy mind in hell and despair not" in a repentance, and asked my spiritual father if it was a correct understanding by sms, which it was, but now I have forgot much of it because it isn't normal for me to think that way. I remember it was a bit tricky btw. Maybe there are many meanings of the saying?? Maybe someone can write the meaning of the saying here? My point is that I understood it in a repenting mind. It is very seldom I repent that way, and it is a God-given and grace-given act: true repentance.

Peter

Andreas Moran

26-07-2008, 03:47 PM

The saying of St Silouan, 'Keep thy mind in hell, and despair not', given to him as a 'revealing word from Christ Himself', is a message to 'our generation [which] finds itself in greater want and tribulation, and has need of salvation, more than ever before'. We suffer from 'pride, the darkening of the mind and its captivity by the spirit of wickedness, despair and the multitude of involuntary afflictions which accompany it, and finally, despondency - the manifest lack of concern for the salvation which God offers every day to the world'. These words of Fr Zacharias are echoed, I think, in a post some time back by Fr David who wrote of the problem we suffer of the world we live in bombarding us with images and temptations, causing spiritual numbness and loss of sensitivity; as he put it, 'we have become desensitized to the presence and effect of sin in our lives'. We know that even the very word 'sin' is something the world hardly recognises.

God's message to St Silouan is 'strange and incomprehensible'. What may seem morbid and negative in fact brought St Silouan great joy: 'my soul was rejoiced' ('St Silouan the Athonite, p. 431) and he found 'victory over the power of the enemy'. This teaching is 'central . . . to the understanding of the Way of Christ', the way of descent and ascent and the gaining thereby of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is the imitation of Christ's kenosis. He was without sin and so His 'going down' was by way of emptying Himself of His glory. Our way, being sinful, is through self-condemnation. (I remember some years ago, I was talking about this with Fr Zacharias. I had just bought St John Chrysostom's Homilies on St Matthew. He took the book from me, turned to Homily XLI and marked in pencil where it says, 'But if thou desire not to be punished even here, pass judgment on thyself, exact thine own penalty. Listen to Paul, when he saith, "If we would judge ouselves, we should not be judged". If thou do this, proceeding in order thou shalt even arrive at a crown'.) The Church and the Holy Fathers constantly emphasize this theme: in the writings of St Isaiah the Solitary, St Neilos the Ascetic, St John Climacus, and others; in the prayers of the Church as well - Fr Zacharias once mentioned the Cherubic Hymn where we, by a 'downward' ascetic effort, 'lay aside all earthly care that we may raise on high the King of all'. This is also found as a theme in the prayers before Holy Communion, he said.

Can we do this? The teaching of St Silouan, 'Keep thy mind in hell, and despair not' is widely know; this does not mean that it is equally widely applicable. It is important to remember this. St Silouan engaged in extreme ascetic struggle for decades. This led to his being able to condemn himself to the uttermost, and his ascent was proportionate to his descent. Can we condemn ourselves as he did - should we think we could? Hell was real to him: 'he was referring to a real experience of hell' which is an 'all-consuming fire' ('St Silouan the Athonite', p. 212). 'Very few are able to do as the Staretz did' writes Fr Sophony. The danger for others is not knowing one's own strength and in not being able to keep in proper balance the descent into hell and yet not despairing. A man 'must know his own capacity, so as not to overburden his soul', wrote St Silouan. It is necessary to keep in mind the boundless mercy and compassion of the Lord; in this, the way of Fr Porhpyrios is valuable. But the way of St Silouan may not be the way at all for some. Fr Zacharias told me this once. He was teaching a nun about this, the Jesus Prayer and hesychasm. Fr Sophrony came to Fr Zacharias and said to him, 'you're stupid! What are you doing? This way is not for her.' Fr Zacharias asked Fr Sophrony how she would be saved. 'She will be saved by humbly doing her work', Fr Sophrony explained. So the message of St Silouan is important and it may be acted upon by some according to their strength and capacity. How is a person to know these? That is not easy and needs discernment and guidance. And it may not be the way for some people at all.

Peter S.

26-07-2008, 05:09 PM

These words of Fr Zacharias are echoed, I think, in a post some time back by Fr David who wrote of the problem we suffer of the world we live in bombarding us with images and temptations, causing spiritual numbness and loss of sensitivity; as he put it, 'we have become desensitized to the presence and effect of sin in our lives'. We know that even the very word 'sin' is something the world hardly recognises.

God's message to St Silouan is 'strange and incomprehensible'. What may seem morbid and negative in fact brought St Silouan great joy: 'my soul was rejoiced' ('St Silouan the Athonite, p. 431) and he found 'victory over the power of the enemy'. This teaching is 'central . . . to the understanding of the Way of Christ', the way of descent and ascent and the gaining thereby of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is the imitation of Christ's kenosis. He was without sin and so His 'going down' was by way of emptying Himself of His glory. Our way, being sinful, is through self-condemnation. (I remember some years ago, I was talking about this with Fr Zacharias. I had just bought St John Chrysostom's Homilies on St Matthew. He took the book from me, turned to Homily XLI and marked in pencil where it says, 'But if thou desire not to be punished even here, pass judgment on thyself, exact thine own penalty. Listen to Paul, when he saith, "If we would judge ouselves, we should not be judged". If thou do this, proceeding in order thou shalt even arrive at a crown'.)

Can we do this? The teaching of St Silouan, 'Keep thy mind in hell, and despair not' is widely know; this does not mean that it is equally widely applicable. It is important to remember this. St Silouan engaged in extreme ascetic struggle for decades. This led to his being able to condemn himself to the uttermost, and his ascent was proportionate to his descent. Can we condemn ourselves as he did - should we think we could? Hell was real to him: 'he was referring to a real experience of hell' which is an 'all-consuming fire' ('St Silouan the Athonite', p. 212).

I was not referring to a real experience of Hell, (which I suppose is a place without God in your heart), but of a revelation of the saying in a repenting state of mind. But I felt it was very difficult to understand it, since I had stopped judging myself, thinking about the meaning, (I m not saying the full reality of meaning behind the words, since I have not had this ascetic struggle) But when St. Silouan said this he knew that every man could would not be a part of this ascetic struggle, but it is also an advice that you shall repent and knowing yourself as a sinner, condemning your self. And that was what being revelated to me, when/after repenting. You dont need to have the deepest understanding of Hell to know the saying. It shall echo Jesus sayings about repentance which he spoke to everyone.

I felt it was about selfknowledge, but I felt someone was trying to take the knowledge away from me, I think this happens because we have not had an ascetic struggle so we can keep that awareness/knowledge that we are sinners (or something like that, which I don't remember anymore). But it has to do with condemning yourelf as you write Andreas.

But after a sin like what is written about in this thread, (or other sins), the condemning of yourself must be right, and the repentance must be true, and this is interresting here. Pride stands in the way for the selfcondemnation so it becomes a wrong selfcondemnation.

Another advice is to pray to Theotokos as St. Mary of Egypt did.

Peter

Andreas Moran

26-07-2008, 09:12 PM

I hesitate to speak on my own account but here goes.

a revelation of the saying in a repenting state of mind.

I don't think the saying is freshly revealed to us like this; rather the saying 'kick starts' the process of repentance.

The fact that St Silouan's way is not for all does not detract from the saying being important. The core principle is humility. What Fr Sophrony meant in all this is as follows: the world today suffers from pride and despair as at no other time. The teaching is to replace these with their opposites, humility and hope. There are different ways to do this. The ascetic way of St Silouan is one, and the hardest. The way of the nun 'humbly doing her work' is another. The focus on love of God and not our sins (as per Fr Porphyrios) is another. All the ways are aspects of the way of Christ Who is the way.

Peter S.

26-07-2008, 11:01 PM

I hesitate to speak on my own account but here goes.

I don't think the saying is freshly revealed to us like this; rather the saying 'kick starts' the process of repentance.

The fact that St Silouan's way is not for all does not detract from the saying being important. The core principle is humility. What Fr Sophrony meant in all this is as follows: the world today suffers from pride and despair as at no other time. The teaching is to replace these with their opposites, humility and hope. There are different ways to do this. The ascetic way of St Silouan is one, and the hardest. The way of the nun 'humbly doing her work' is another. The focus on love of God and not our sins (as per Fr Porphyrios) is another. All the ways are aspects of the way of Christ Who is the way.

Well the fact is that I repented, then something was revealed about the saying. Who knows the ways of the Spirit? The meaning of the saying suddenly came to me. But not the whole reality of the meaning. What happened is history. And I asked my spiritual father about what came into my thoughts and he told me it was true, and he knows about the spiritual struggle. He is a an archimandrite and a schema. He started his ascetic way in the monastery in Valamo many years ago btw, if not before. Then I think the revealing was from the Holy Spirit. Can't I have a repenting state of mind for some seconds? Can't something be revealed to me? I m also a human. It was something I thought about. It was about selfknowledge. Your thoughts are cleaner when you repent btw. Maybe there are different layers of meaning of the saying? And it's not just important, but relevant to everybody. Everyone can know their true self. I didn´t mean that all of this was relealed in that moment, but a part of it.

I think you misunderstand me Andreas, and that's not strange because I often am not being prescise, going to fast or dont tell whats in my heart on the paper. It was easy to misunderstand. (I m not a saint at all.) But I m a human. Well generally it always gives trouble being too personal... I have also read the sayings of St. Silouan which Fr. Sophrony put together, and have been to the monastery in Essex btw, and I plan a trip to Athos with a friend on the land where St. Silouan was, btw.

You are right that there are many ways to Christ, but what is the hardest way also depends on the person. (Sometimes you combine different ways, there is sometimes nothing in the way for that.)

More into what's the topic I think it is important to the struggle with the passions and repenting them is that you must have patience in your struggling and not think that there was nothing wrong with you before the moment of the sin, and that everything was perfect before. As St Peter the Apostle also says this is related to that you have forgot that you were forgiven. And you have forgot your participation in the Eucharist. What is normal for many like me is living like everything is perfect, and forgetting the truth that you are a sinner. Then it's hard to judge yourself, as you re writing about Andreas. That is what the saying is about.

the sinner,
Peter

Andreas Moran

26-07-2008, 11:57 PM

Peter S.

27-07-2008, 10:15 PM

Dear Peter,

Obviously, I cannot apply the teaching of St Silouan and Fr Sophrony to anyone. I have only tried to explain the teaching in a general way. You have a spiritual father so it is to him you have to turn.

Dear Andreas,

I don't disagree with what you say about the 'kick-start-process', but sometimes other things can happen. I think my spiritual father agrees with what you say about the saying of St. Silouan, but there are maybe something about the teaching you didn't write.

All the best!

Peter

Andreas Moran

27-07-2008, 10:57 PM

but there are maybe something about the teaching you didn't write.

Actually, I did spend some time at the monastery yesterday (Saturday) afternoon talking about this (and getting checked what I said in post 172). I tried to write as concise an account as I could in my two posts (172 and 174) in an attempt to express the essential principle based partly on that discussion (174), partly from looking at the books, and partly from what Fr Zacharias has told me in the past. You can find out more by reading the books of Fr Sophrony and Fr Zacharias. There is also much that has not been translated into English, and more in the archives that has not yet been published in any language. But there is no 'secret knowledge' behind the teaching (and I accept that you may not have meant in what I quote above that you thought there might be). It is, as I tried to say, about self-condemnation, repentance and humility on the one hand, and hope, trust and love on the other. The way the teaching is applied depends on the person, who ought to have guidance in this. For example, I was told that some people cannot say the Jesus Prayer because they get too focused on sin and not enough on not despairing, and they are told to pray, 'Glory be to Thee, O God, glory be to Thee'.

Peter S.

30-07-2008, 04:54 PM

But there is no 'secret knowledge' behind the teaching (and I accept that you may not have meant in what I quote above that you thought there might be). It is, as I tried to say, about self-condemnation, repentance and humility on the one hand, and hope, trust and love on the other.

I didnt mean there is a secret teaching as you could imagine, but there are things about ourselves only God knows.. And if the saying came to St. Silouan from Christ I m sure there is hidden a message about self-knowledge behind the words The teaching fits together with other Orthodox Christian teaching.

Peter

Andreas Moran

30-07-2008, 09:14 PM

a message about self-knowledge

Self-knowledge is very important though it can only really come about with God's help. There may be occasions (which may be very rare in life) when God reveals to a person the blackness of his soul so that he is humbled. Again, one may work to gain self-knowledge as St Silouan did, with God's help.

The teaching fits together with other Orthodox Christian teaching.

The fact that it does is reflected in the fact that in the monastery here, there are depicted on the wall of the choir loft some of those saints who gave us similar teaching.

Peter S.

30-07-2008, 10:32 PM

There may be occasions (which may be very rare in life) when God reveals to a person the blackness of his soul so that he is humbled.

Sometimes God reveals so much as if the blackness is grey, but not more at that moment.

Peter

Andreas Moran

03-08-2008, 12:38 AM

Peter S.

04-08-2008, 04:17 PM

I had the very briefest chat with Fr Zacharias this afternoon, brief because Professor Mantzarides is here and the two of them are very busy. I asked Fr Zacharias about the two ways of Fr Sophrony and Fr Porphyrios. Not surprisingly, he said, 'they are both right'. He said, 'the way of Fr Sophrony is for the few, for those who are ascetics. The way of Fr Porphyrios is a way for all. Those who follow the way of Fr Sophrony may sometimes find that, according to their strength and perhaps their disposition at some particular time, they need to step back from the way of Fr Sophrony and at such times they can maintain their spiritual momentum and balance by following some of the advice of Fr Porphyrios.'

I think this is right, but what I mean with that the saying is relevant for me is the same as if I read some of the sayings of the desert fathers, learning from them still not living the same life as St. Anthony or others. The sayings contain much information and wisdom that can help everybody, if they want.

We should never give up. This constant struggle IS fruitful even if it feels otherwise. It's another take on Saint Silouan's 'keep thy mind in hell and despair not"

C. Christoph

I think I know what Christoph means by this. The saying is relevant even if you are not a monk or nun. Everybody can fight the temptations, if they want.

Peter