St Isaac, a Nestorian? [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Fr Raphael Vereshack

02-11-2006, 05:27 PM

Hi,

Would you (or anyone else) happen to know when the Assyrian Church adopted the heresy of iconoclasm?

I always figured it was a result of Islamic influence or something similar, but I'd be very interested in getting the details of this aspect of the Church of the East.

In XC,
Kris

I really don't think they ever did. One thing to keep in mind when trying to understand this whole situation is that the Persian church was very isolated from the rest of the Church. This was due to geography and the fact that it was under the political control of Persia which swung in between benign tolerance & outright persecution. The Persians also had their own pious and theological culture which grew out of their unique Syriac & Mesopotamian world. Influences on them were Judaism (notice all the names of Old Testament figures among their church- Isaac, Abraham, etc). A very strong influence on them was the Antiochene theological tradition, especially Scriptural exegesis, as represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Later influences were Evagrius, Dionysisos the Areopagite, St Macarios' homilies (and Egyptian skete life in general) along with the Cappadocian Frs. Over time this gave the Persian church its own very unique culture and way of thinking.

For a long time the Persians had much more of a concentration on a spirituality based on asceticism and exegesis than a systematic theology. In fact it can be said the Persians never had a systematically worked out theology in the way we are used to this. Instead they had a basically Antiochene theology or Christology which gradually went through changes which brought it closer to changes in Byzantine theology.

A strong element in what formed them was the arrival of large numbers of monophysites who had fled or been deported from Byzantine areas. The conflict between the Persians & monophysites saw the first great conflicts on the Persian church scene as monophysites began proselytizing & attracting some of the Persian faithful. The main influence on the Persians from this was to accentuate at times the Antiochene element in reaction. But this 'conservatizing' trend itself was resisted by many Persians who favoured some of theological changes in a Byzantine direction (eg more emphasis on the one Person of Christ while still remaining adamantly faithful to the older Antiochene vision of the two natures). In any case by the 7th c this led to the situation where in Persia there was a theological spectrum of Antiochene conservatives, moderates, and some who wanted to push in a more Byzantine direction. All of this meant that as time went by the Persians were more inclined towards the Byzantine church but due to other factors the two were never particularly close. The Persians had not been canonically reliant on any other church for many centuries, nor for that matter were they spiritually reliant. This is probably why even though the Ecumenical Councils were periodically of theological interest to them in terms of having some sort of universally acceptable & proper Faith, they really did regard these Councils as not applying to them in any juridical sense. Thus their theology and faith was one that resulted from local choices in a way difficult for us to understand.

In any case resulting from this whole situation we find a church which is generally speaking Antiochene in one way, Alexandrian in another. Some have used the word 'hesychast' to best describe their monasticism. Whatever it was it was unique, and a strong argument can be made that it was not Nestorian, even though the situation was far from simple on this score. What is important to recognize is that the relative theological variety found in Persia was quite unique.

The last question is about St Isaac. He fits into the later 7th c period which saw many influences both theological and monastic. He deeply assimilated many of the prominent influences of his monastic world but was very reticent theologically. It seems he was a theological moderate. But some have interpreted his reticence along with many statements about the evils of disputation to infer that he was reacting against some of the theological conservatives in his own church who quite unique to the Persian experience pushed for an either/or theological expression.

Anyway, taking all of this context into account it can be better understood how St Issac was more than likely not a Nestorian.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

02-11-2006, 11:48 PM

Anyway, taking all of this context into account it can be better understood how St Issac was more than likely not a Nestorian.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father Raphael,

A most interesting post, which brings out well the nuances of a complex situation.

Your last comment may well be correct in a wide sense, although it must take into account the views of +Hilarion and Professor Brock, whose work here has great authority.

We need also, as has been noted, to take into account the partial nature of the oeuvre of the Saint. That part that we are familiar with comes from an Orthodox translation, and it would have been natural for the translators to have concentrated on those teachings which reflected the Truth of the tradition. The two other parts of the works that have not passed through such a process, especially the third part which has not appeared in Greek or English, is known to me only through an Italian translation, and I am told by those whose Italian is superior to mine, that it overwhelmingly suggests an Orthodox mindset, although mingled with some more Antiochene phraseology that could pass for the Assyrian tradition.

It ought also to be noted that the Assyrians claim him as their own, which is only natural.

In the light of what is known it seems unnecessary to try to attach labels to the Saint. He was certainly part of the Church of the East, but from your cogent account, and from other sources, we can see that that does not mean that his teachings make him a 'nestorian'.

Perhaps this is a reminder of the complex nature of the process by which teachings are received as Orthodox? Since the teachings are what they are, it seems that little would be achieved by attaching a label to his earthly self.

That the Assyrians, the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox can all claim his teachings seems to me to say something profound.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

02-11-2006, 11:53 PM

Dear Father Raphael,

A most interesting post, which brings out well the nuances of a complex situation.

Your last comment may well be correct in a wide sense, although it must take into account the views of +Hilarion and Professor Brock, whose work here has great authority.

We need also, as has been noted, to take into account the partial nature of the oeuvre of the Saint. That part that we are familiar with comes from an Orthodox translation, and it would have been natural for the translators to have concentrated on those teachings which reflected the Truth of the tradition. The two other parts of the works that have not passed through such a process, especially the third part which has not appeared in Greek or English, is known to me only through an Italian translation, and I am told by those whose Italian is superior to mine, that it overwhelmingly suggests an Orthodox mindset, although mingled with some more Antiochene phraseology that could pass for the Assyrian tradition.

It ought also to be noted that the Assyrians claim him as their own, which is only natural.

In the light of what is known it seems unnecessary to try to attach labels to the Saint. He was certainly part of the Church of the East, but from your cogent account, and from other sources, we can see that that does not mean that his teachings make him a 'nestorian'.

Perhaps this is a reminder of the complex nature of the process by which teachings are received as Orthodox? Since the teachings are what they are, it seems that little would be achieved by attaching a label to his earthly self.

That the Assyrians, the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox can all claim his teachings seems to me to say something profound.

In Christ,

John

Thanks for this post.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Ryan

03-11-2006, 07:32 PM

Thank you all for some great responses. So St. Isaac was probably not a Nestorian, but doesn't his not being a member of the Orthodox Church raise problems in itself (in terms of his sainthood)?

On a somewhat unrelated note, I have read that the story of Sts Barlaam and Josaphat are based indirectly on the life of Shakyamuni Buddha. How well has this been proven, and what are we to make of it?

John Charmley

04-11-2006, 06:58 PM

Thank you all for some great responses. So St. Isaac was probably not a Nestorian, but doesn't his not being a member of the Orthodox Church raise problems in itself (in terms of his sainthood)?

Dear Ryan,

I think what is being said is quite subtle, but is unlikely to add up to a statement that he was not a 'Nestorian'.

What does seem established by authorities as Orthodox as +Hilarion, and as scholarly as Professor Brock, is that he was a member of the Church of the East in which he became a bishop.

What is equally plain is that since at least the 9th century, a Greek Orthodox translation of the first part of St. Isaac's homilies had been in circulation, which has been recognised by all Orthodox as reflecting the Truth which the Church teaches; and it is this which is what really matters to us today.

The question of exactly what it means to be a 'Nestorian' is a vexed one, and the Assyrian Church of the East denies that it is Nestorian in the commonly used sense of that word. To quote Bishop Mar Bawai Soro & Cor-bishop M. J. Birnie in an address delivered at the First Non-official Consultation 1994 talks in Vienna:

If, for example, the term "Nestorian" as mentioned in the text of the Vienna Christological Formula is perceived to describe a union of the two natures of our Lord which results in "one and another" or "Two Sons" in Christ, or suggests that Christ is an "ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and prophets of old, then the Church of the East will also condemn and re-ject such teaching regardless of the "name" it has been presented under.
The fact must be taken into account that historically the Church of the East has never understood the term "Nestorian" to mean what has been suggested above. On the Contrary, the term "Nestorian" has always been conceived by Church of the East Fathers to refer to a Christological position in harmony with the orthodox teaching

There are no signs that St. Isaac's understanding of these matters differs from this modern statement. There has been much speculation as to why he resigned his bishopric so soon after appointment, and those who worry about the implications of venerating a non-Chalcedonian saint are sometimes to be found citing St. Isaac's Orthodoxy as the reason.

There seems no need for any such speculation, since there seems no reason for concern about venerating St. Isaac, whose teaching has always been recognised as Orthodox.

That it has been recognised as such by at least three Churches is a matter that ought to give us cause for joy, not concern. What matters is what the Saint teaches and how, in the wholeness of tradition, we receive what has been taught.

INXC,

John

Tim Grass

04-11-2006, 09:07 PM

Let's say for a moment St. Isaac was a Nestorian..... is this really a crisis?

--tim

John Charmley

05-11-2006, 11:45 AM

Let's say for a moment St. Isaac was a Nestorian..... is this really a crisis?

--tim

Dear Tim,

Clearly, for some people, it would appear to be a cause for concern. Equally, there is, as as been said before, no reason for this to be the case.

The difficulty some folk have with 'history' as the source for saying St. Isaac was a Nestorian bishop, worries me a lot more. 'History' proves nothing, and is therefore a regular source of disappointment to those who want a monochrome picture of the past, but a disbelief in it as a tool by which we may begin to apprehend our past is a curious thing to find in a Church which places such an emphasis on its tradition. There will always be those who will misuse any gift from God, but that is no reason to scorn it. History and tradition are one, or they are nothing.

The notion that one could believe in Tradition and not in history, which has been an undertone at times in these discussions, puzzles me - but I guess it comes from some of the v. odd history that gets written.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has written an excellent book around these topics: Why Study the Past?: The Quest for the Historical Church which I would highly recommend for anyone who thinks there needs to be a disjunction between history and tradition.

INXC

John

M.C. Steenberg

05-11-2006, 05:13 PM

Dear all,

There's quite a lot to think about in this thread. Mr Grass wrote:

Let's say for a moment St. Isaac was a Nestorian..... is this really a crisis?

I think this actually a very good question. And I think I agree with what I infer to be the underlying statement (though I may be wrong; inferring is difficult); namely, that it isn't a crisis.

John and Fr Raphael have both made some good comments on the difficult historical situation that lies behind the whole issue. The Church of the East was no more a monolith in Isaac's day than was any other Church; the idea of someone being 'a Nestorian' in the sense we often use it to day is hard to pin down and define; etc. So when we today ask 'was he a Nestorian?', we're posing a question that doesn't really (or shouldn't really) have a strict, black-and-white, yes-or-no answer. If one is forced to think in such simple categories, the answer probably must be 'yes'. I see little justification for denying either that St Isaac was a faithful and loyal churchman of the Church of the East, or that this tradition engaged with the heritage of Nestorius' concerns in a different way than much of the rest of Christianity in its day.

But a 'yes-or-no' question like this is in some compelling sense unfaithful to the life and testimony of Christianity as a whole. People are not 'just heretics' or 'just saints', either wholly right or wholly wrong; and the vicissitudes of history, with changing boundry lines and borders, have meant that neat and tidy delineations of just where sanctity and holiness reside are inauthentic to the rather disastrous divisions we've wrought in the world.

I hesitate to answer 'no' to the question, 'Was Isaac a Nestorian?'; but I also hesitate with the answer 'yes'. We've constructed a Nestorianism over time that even Nestorius couldn't realistically be convicted of. But that matter aside, the question of sanctity and ecclesiastical jurisdiction has to be seen in the light of the sinfulness of the world and the fracture of Christian unity.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

06-11-2006, 12:17 PM

As I have said before, I do find this a very interesting topic since it puts my own perceptions and prejudices (in the sense of pre-judgements) under focus.

I have found it interesting to read the Christological papers written by Mar Bawai Soro and his colleagues. They do not answer all my questions, but they do raise many other interesting ones in my mind that I don't yet have the resources to answer.

I would recommend that those who have an interest, and not all do of course, would find these Assyrian Church of the East documents interesting and stimulating at least. They certainly have modified my own easy criticism of that community and required me to be much more nuanced.

http://www.cired.org/east.html

In fact the paper I am taking out to lunch today is called: The Person and Teachings of Thedore of Mopsuestia and the Relationship between him, his teachings and the Church of the East, with a special reference to the Three Chapters Controversy.

I think that a study of these writings might give an insight into the context in which St Isaac lived, from the Church of the East perspective.

Peter

Mary Christine Erikson

08-04-2007, 02:31 PM

Andrew

08-04-2007, 05:17 PM

I am going to ask one question in response to all this.

WHY do you and others here quote St. Isaac of Syria aka St. Isaac of Nineveh?

Do you not know that he is NOT a saint of Orthodoxy, he is NOT a Father of the Church, though many of his writings were liked by Orthodox past and present,

Do you not know that he is a NESTORIAN?

Mary Christine Erikson

He is a Father of Orthodoxy. He is one of the most beloved and respected teachers and saints, a true prophet of the desert. He is commemorated on the Church calendar. His writings are edifying and read by many in the Church, both monastics and those in the world. He speaks with much authority given from life in the Spirit; look at the fruit of his life, at the divine vision and life he entered into. Saint Isaac truly is a deified man who intercedes on the behalf of the Church, and his teachings are truly Orthodox.

John Charmley

08-04-2007, 05:28 PM

Dear Mary Christine,

A blessed Pascha to you and yours.

You'll see from the two threads on St. Isaac that we have discussed his Nestorianism pretty thoroughly; Bishop Hilarion's book on St. Isaac shows clearly that his teachings have been part of Orthodoxy since the eighth century, at least, and, of course, he is in the Philokalia; apart from all that, his teachings seem to breathe a spirit which many Christians find instructive.

Even if he a Nestorian (and if you follow up the threads mentioned above, you'll see I am rather inclined to your own view), St. Cyril of Alexandria correctly remarked that not everything a heretic taught was heretical; Orthodox teachers have found the teachings of the saint to be part of the great tradition.

I shall leave it to those more erudite than I to comment on the statement that he is 'not a Father of the Church'; I am not sure exactly what your definition of such a one is, but I have seen him cited often enough. Are you concerned that some of his teachings as cited here are not in accordance with Orthodox teaching and belief?

Do have a look at Bishop Hilarion's The Spiritual World of St. Isaac the Syrian (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879077751); it is a wonderful book by an Orthodox bishop, and will show, far more convincingly than anything my words can say, why I and others here cite St. Isaac.

He is Risen Indeed!

In Christ,

John

Herman Blaydoe

09-04-2007, 03:35 PM

WHY do you and others here quote St. Isaac of Syria aka St. Isaac of Nineveh?

Because he speaks the mind of the Church.

Do you not know that he is NOT a saint of Orthodoxy, he is NOT a Father of the Church,

Sez who, 'zakly?

though many of his writings were liked by Orthodox past and present,

Indeed, "infallibility" is not a requirement we Orthodox have inflicted on our bishops or our saints.

Do you not know that he is a NESTORIAN?

Maybe, maybe not, kind of depends on who you ask. Again see my comment above.

Mary Christine Erikson

10-04-2007, 03:02 AM

(1)How do you define Church Father? My understanding is that they should
be someone to start with who at least died as a member in good standing
(and did most of their writing in that context) of a canonical Orthodox church of the first 7 or 8 centuries. Whatever his teachings, Isaac doesn't fit the bill, since he never repudiated the Nestorian church, nor tried to establish that it did not at any more (or perhaps never had) preached Nestorianism as defined by the Council of Ephesus.

I can appreciate that not all a heretic preaches is heresy, for that matter
not all a church father or lesser light teaches is necessarily reliably NOT
heresy. This is most likely to be a problem sometime after they'd died,
someone who influenced them (spec. Origen) has been anathematized,
and the majority of what they taught was not part of that anyway.

(2)Who says Issac isn't an Orthodox saint? Well, if he is a saint in the
Nestorian church, then he didn't get canonized by the Orthodox,
everybody just got used to seeing him referred to as "St. Isaac" and
ASSUMED he was a canonical sort of saint.

A good example of this sort of thing being attempted more recently,
is when on an Orthodox egroup someone blithely (who supported the
alleged orthodoxy of the monophysites, whose top men firmly deny
Chalcedon, value politics of the day above truth instead of confessing
the nationalistic sin of inventing some notion to excuse separation that
should never have exploited religion to do it and who put a theoria
caveat in that effectively places the Two Natures in the zone of an
impression of the observer only and not a REALITY) the poster in question
said that "St. Dioscuros" blah blah etc etc., and no one challenged this.

I pointed out that Dioscuros was no saint, but anathematized, and that
this person was just slipping this past into the general readers' minds to
shape their phronema or mindset down the road with a false bit of
info. I pointed out that this was dishonest, it had to be deliberately
dishonest, those who didn't keep track wouldn't know Dioscuros was not
Orthodox, but anyone who knew his name and could quote him WOULD
know this. But he presented it as a facilitating manipulator. Of course I
got the usual nonsense about knowing someone's heart, which anyone
used to predicting whether they are safe with a person for the next
20 minutes to several hours can tell you is totally false.

The point is, that once something is presented and accepted and repeated,
then down the road lots and lots of people just ASSUME it is as it is
presented. But it isn't.

This would of course address the Buddha as saint matter. I read of that
years ago and I can believe it. People eager to add to the list of objects
of near adoration so they feel an endorphin rush (bakhti yoga, the alleged
value of love or even worship regardless of the object thereof), will glom
onto anything without investigation, and in those days it was not easy
to investigate much anyway.

Why would God allow His people to be deceived? Well, maybe they weren't
listening, and maybe God thought it was a good model for wealthy rulers
who considered themselves Christian but were merely worshipping their
bellies as their god, as Jude in his Epistle put it.

(3) The notion of God not being angry and the confusion between anger
as an end in itself, springing from a hate driven personality, vs. anger
that comes from love for what is harmed, strikes me as fleshly at best
heretical at worst. It reeks of New Age false notions of Christ and God,
and is not any part of Scripture, early church writings or common sense,
let alone the whole point of liturgy praising God for His love and mercy
that spares us what we deserve and begs we got transformed more into
being less deserving of judgement, and refers to the Judgement Day
and so forth.

Isaac must have been a very conflicted person. Loyal to his church
without preaching its characteristic heresies as far as is known, neither
rejecting it nor defending it as Orthodox but slandered, and with great
love for creatures once he commented on the poor animals that are
headed for slaughter. A man of great justice and apparently love, who
eventually took refuge in Rome perhaps because it was far from the
controversy.

Such a man with unresolved intense conflicts, is not necessarily the
sort of person one needs to look to for some radical redefinition of
any point of belief. Probably he was sensitive to the excommunication
and anathema matter, afraid for himself and his church, loyal which
is NOT A GOOD THING, loyalty is very bad when in iterferes with
righteousness which it usually does, we must be loyal to God not to
men or churches or families or anything but try to keep objective,
and apparently not a denier of the accusation of heresy.

Whatever his eternal situation or that of the Nestorian churches,
I don't think we should look to a candidate for mental/emotional
breakdown, which may have been goin on during his stay in Rome,
for guidance.

Antiochian interpretation style is simply that which is more balanced,
like Paul's writings which use analogies and typology, but primarily is
literal. Concrete. Alexandria under the influence of pagan philosophy
went to extremes.

It takes a confusion between person and nature - the key to many
problematic ideas - to equate two natures with two persons. And
this could just as easily be created using an Alexandrian approach as
an Antiochene. The Alexandrian being less focussed and more blurry
happened to give rise to the monophysite heresy. But again, some
degree of confusion about nature and person may be involved.

In any case, Nestorianism as defined and correctly rejected at Ephesus,
is not inherently Antiochian any more than it is inherently Pauline.

And Cyril of Alexandria's famous quote about one Incarnate Nature
was something he said WRONGLY THINKING IT WAS FROM ATHANASIUS.
But that was his error, which many have paid for since, because in
fact it was a quote from APOLLINARIUS, an ancestor of monophysitism.

So Cyril, who upheld Athanasius, was not intending anything like his
words are taken to mean, and Athanasius paints a two nature one person
Incarnation and sacrifice to God and this the only way of God keeping His
integrity and consistency and getting us back from Adam's Fall.

And Athanasius does not deny God's wrath, he just doesn't have the
pathological misinterpretation that is back of Kalomiros' and New Ager
and liberal Protestantism rejection of God's wrath.

There are two kinds of anger. One that springs from hate as an end
in itself, anger as an end in itself. The other is based in love for something
or someone and hates what or who does it harm.

A classic picture is when God tells Job and his comforters, that He, God,
is angry with Job's "comforters," and they should go to Job and have him
pray for them, for God will not accept their faces, but will accept the
face of Job. And He tells Job to make an offering for them and pray for
them, that they may be forgiven.

Notice the seamless garment of love and love based wrath, not wrath as
end in itself.

God loves truth, especially about Himself. And they have spoken wrongly
about Him, and in the process added unnecessarily to Job's suffering. A
bigger picture than just reward and punishment was in play here, and
they didn't even think of that. Neither did Job, but he knew there had to
be an answer and sought it.

So God having called and end to all this, now calls accounts. He is mad
at these guys. But though He pushes them away, He tells them how
they can come back to Him, and makes provision for them to do so.

Mary Christine Erikson

Peter Farrington

10-04-2007, 12:16 PM

With respect Mary, you really have no idea what you are talking about in regard to Oriental Orthodoxy, and everything you have said about Oriental Orthodoxy is false.

It is not permitted to discuss these things on this forum, and therefore in the interests of fairness it would be helpful if you did not make false statements about other Christians which they are not able to refute.

I will add, in regard to St Isaac, who is of course an Oriental Orthodox saint also, that many of the early saints of the Church in Georgia were all 'monophysite' Syrian monks and they are all still venerated by the Georgian Church and always have been.

Thanks

Peter

M.C. Steenberg

10-04-2007, 12:40 PM

Polemical posts are not fruitful.

But as to actual content:

Such a man with unresolved intense conflicts, is not necessarily the sort of person one needs to look to for some radical redefinition of any point of belief.

[...] I don't think we should look to a candidate for mental/emotional breakdown, which may have been goin on during his stay in Rome, for guidance.

My dear Ms Erikson, these are rather fantastical claims to make. On what grounds to you characterise Isaac in this way? Simply suggesting the turmoil of the conflict of the day in which he was involved, and then making the assumption that therefore he himself must have been 'a man with unresolved intense conflicts' or 'a candidate for mental/emotional breakdown', will not suffice in the slightest. Please provide some concrete evidence for the kind of situation you are describing. Without it, this is simply assumption and has no value for fruitful discussion.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

10-04-2007, 12:52 PM

Matthew, and/or others,

Do we know the earliest periods at which the writings of St Isaac came to be diffused in the West? I mean in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communities?

I have not been a student of St Isaac, though I enjoy everything posted by him, so I am not sure when his teachings and the veneration of his person spread in the Church.

Peter

John Charmley

10-04-2007, 01:00 PM

Dear Mary Christine,

Goodness me, where to begin?

Since this is a forum for discussion of patristics and Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, it is probably best to leave your comments about the Copts to one side. If you follow this link http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ you will be reminded of long term discussions between those who were the undivided Church; there are, of course, those who find such discussions not to their way of thinking; they should take that up with their priests and hierarchs. At any rate, discussion in this forum has been interesting and, at times intense; but experience suggests our esteemed moderators are spot on in discouraging us from spending too much time on this outside that part of the forum where it is most properly placed.

Your desire to have things cut and dried, as it were, is understandable; but they are seldom so. Your definition of Church Father is an example of this; there is no defined process by which someone is so declared - it isn't like the Roman process of canonisation; the 'mind of the Church' decides over time. The whole question is complex. Origen, for example, is certainly acknowledged by all as a 'Father' - although parts of his teaching is certainly controversial and condemned as unOrthodox. Orthodox folk can rest on the verdict of the Church across the centuries, which is that St. Isaac and Origen are 'Fathers'.

'Nestorianism' is another complex issue. As Matthew Steenberg has commented elsewhere on this site, later generations have created a Nestorianism which Nestorius would not recognise; these things have become labels, and once one penetrates beyond them, one sees how complex and nuanced things were - and are. Demitrios Bethrellos' The Byzantine Christ (2004), which is an excellent work by an impeccably Orthodox scholar, and certainly not well-disposed to non-Chalcedonians, is a good place to find an informed discussion of some of these Christological issues. He acknowledges the insights that came from some of the Nestorian theologians, as well as their limitations. A simple condemnation of a whole tradition, which would, itself, reject the notion that it has ever taught 'two sons', seems an unhelpful approach.

We actually know very little of St. Isaac's life, and we certainly do not know enough to say what sort of Nestorian he may have been. His works have been found Orthodox by the Orthodox for centuries; is it not better to be guided by the mind of the Church over the ages than by one's own reaction to unhelpful labels? Just a thought.

I don't know where the notion St. Isaac went to Italy comes from; I have not encountered it; he lived and died in the Persian Gulf region. Similarly with the notion of him as a conflicted soul, this does seem something of a fanciful reading if I may be so bold. His writings breathe exactly the opposite spirit. One reason the Church has been drawn to him is that his preaching of the depth of God's love has been so illuminating to so many across the ages; he is one of the great souls of our faith.

Being the humble soul that he is, our moderator might not like to mentioned in the same paragraph, so I'll put him in a new one. Matthew Steenberg's homily on this site at http://www.monachos.net/library/The_Personal_Mystery_of_Pascha
is a wonderful meditation of the theme of God and love.

The vengeful God of the Old Testament and of Protestant revivalism is only a part of a much bigger picture. What St. Isaac, and other Fathers write, has nothing to do with new ageism; it is part of the great tradition; I know that some former evangelicals can feel uncomfortable with it. It would be interesting to explore the reasons behind this, and to see whether those who feel that way can enlighten us as to the origins of their discomfort; we could, I am sure, learn from such a discussion.
When you write

we must be loyal to God not to men or churches or families or anything but try to keep objective, and apparently not a denier of the accusation of heresy
I would ask how can we be loyal to God and not to His Church and its teachings? Is this an Orthodox formulation?

When you write

Antiochene interpretation style is simply that which is more balanced,
like Paul's writings which use analogies and typology, but primarily is
literal. Concrete. Alexandria under the influence of pagan philosophy
went to extremes.
I am uneasy, since Chalcedon was based around the Christology in the 433 formula of Reunion, and is certainly not simply Antiochene; indeed, one of the reasons for the split was that many of those versed in Alexandrian terminology found the language of Chalcedon too ambiguous and open to a Nestorian interpretation; given the part played by those who were later condemned, such as Theodoret, one can see why. I make no further comment here since my own tradition is different. But as Matthew's excellent piece on the 'two schools' on this site shows, Chalcedon was a nice balance of the Antiochian and Alexandrian traditions.

As for St. Cyril and the 'One Incarnate Nature of the Word', as Professor McGuckin conclusively shows in his seminal work on St. Cyril and the Christological controversy, there is nothing in his understanding of that phrase which is not Orthodox; just because it came from a dodgy source did not make the saint's use of it so. Indeed, I can think of no modern commentator on these matters who would disagree with McGuckin.

St. Cyril, took the view that there were two natures in one hypostasis, with particular meanings attached to both words; meanings which were not understood in that way by the Antiochenes. The formula of Reunion showed how much both St. Cyril and John of Antioch came towards realising their earlier misunderstandings. It is a shame that those who came after these great men lacked their intellectual stature and spiritual humility. The condemnation of Dioscorus at Chalcedon was not for his unorthodoxy, by the way, and the Copts have always confessed two natures before the union. But, as I say, let us keep away from these dangerous and disputed waters.

Well, that would seem enough for now, and I hope the length of this may be forgiven.

It will, I hope, lead to a constructive dialogue.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-04-2007, 04:09 PM

Here from St Isaac the Syrain are some notable words about God's anger well worth keeping firmly in mind:

Know that if fire goes forth from you and consumes other men, God will demand from your hands the souls which your fire has burned. And if you yourself do not put forth the fire, but are in agreement with him who does, and are pleased by it, in the judgement you will be reckoned as his accomplice. If you love gentleness, be peaceful. If you are deemed worthy of peace, you will rejoice at all times. Seek understanding, not gold. Clothe yourself with humility, not fine linen. Gain peace, not a kingdom.

No man has understanding if he is not humble, and he who lacks humility is devoid of understanding. No man is humble if he is not peaceful, and he who is not peaceful is not humble.

Historical reasons could be shown as to why St Isaac has been accepted for so long as a saint by our church such as the fact that at certain times in the past the Persian church was not seen as being clearly Nestorian. ie it was not seen as holding to a heretical understanding of Antiochene theology. The Epilogue of the Brookline translation has some very interesting examples of such contacts between the Byzantines and Persians on the highest levels which even involved liturgical concelebration.

Historical reasons however don't completely explain why in later times, when the lines have been much more clearly drawn, St Isaac has still been accepted in this way.

Ultimately I think it is crucial first to recognize that it was within monasticism that his writings and memory have been most preserved. The Ascetical Homilies were treasured from a very early date and have continued to be translated by monastics into their own local languages up to our own time. Thus his writings were central in the revived monastic tradition in the 18th- 19th centuries with both the kollyvades like St Nikodemos the Agiorite & the those who were influenced by St Paisy Velichkovsky in Russia. Of course we also see a similar veneration in our own time here in the west with the translation of the Homilies and other writings into our own local languages.

To understand why St Isaac has been accepted as a saint one must first read his writings and within the ascetic tradition of the Church. Then it becomes clear that this is due to the angelic quality of his writing which most literally is not surpassed by any other father in spiritual/noetic quality. This quality, somewhat like the writings of St Dionysios the Areopagite, places the vision of the saint beyond that of the Second Coming when all things will be resolved within Christ. And it is due to this vision which is beyond rational categories that any effort to define him by these categories will always fail in practice.

In other words St Isaac is the perfect witness as to what tradition really means ultimately within the Church. Simply put it has nothing to do with any categories at all. Rather it has to with perception and vision. And we can see what accords with the perception and vision of the Church simply by looking to what has been accepted by the Church; ie by tradition.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: St Isaac reposed in Rabban Shabur monastery. This is an area of ancient Persia, not Italy. St Isaac never was west of the present day areas of Iraq & Qatar.

John Charmley

10-04-2007, 06:28 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

We are in you debt for a post that managed, in short compass, to combine wisdom, compassion and information; Paschal inspiration indeed.

On Peter's point about the context of St. Isaac, the following will, I hope, help.

The first part of St. Isaac's homilies (the 82 homilies) were in wide circulation in the Near East in the 8th and 9th centuries, in Syriac. It was probably during the latter part of this period that they were translated into Greek in the Orthodox monastery of St. Saba in Palestine. The translators included 4 texts which are not by him, but by John of Dalyatha, and, even more remarkably, one by Philoxenus of Mabbug, whom Peter knows well. It is this text which has become well-known in the west.

It was not until 1770 that the Greek text was published, edited by the monk Nikiphoros Theotokis, but according to Brock (and who knows better?) this was from a bad translation, on which most subsequent translations were based. It was not until 1909 that the Syriac original of the First Part was published.

The second part had a more troubled existence and was not translated from Syriac and is known to us now through a text sold by the Rev. Yaroo Neesan to the Bodleian Library in Oxford. It has never been translated into Greek, although parts of it have circulated in Arabic translations.

There is a more recently discovered Third part which turned up is mss. form in Tehran and which has been translated into Italian and French, but not English.

Professor Brock has produced an excellent edition of 'Part II', but St. Isaac is known to most people through the Orthodox edition of Part I of his works.

It certainly seems to be the case that there are parts which could be read in a Nestorian sense, but only, I think, by those determined to see it. Without getting too deeply into controversial territory, there were parts of Chalcedon which some thought 'Nestorian', but which no Chalcedonian would read that way. In that sense, people may bring their own preconceptions to what the Saint wrote. I suspect he was well in advance of all of us, and occupied a place where the long conversations between Orthodox about unity have only hesitantly and slowly reached today.

The notion that there is anything in common between his writings on the eternity of God's love for us and 'new age' ramblings would not survive a few moments in his holy presence.

As to why he has been accepted as a Saint by all Orthodox people, no words of mine could say it as well as this from you:

... St Isaac is the perfect witness as to what tradition really means ultimately within the Church. Simply put it has nothing to do with any categories at all. Rather it has to with perception and vision. And we can see what accords with the perception and vision of the Church simply by looking to what has been accepted by the Church; ie by tradition.

Those without the Orthodox tradition may, or may not, have to make their own mind up on such matters; we, thankfully, are not called to that.

If our tendency to think in categories and compartments are challenged by the thought that St. Isaac is venerated by Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonians alike, as well as by Roman Catholics and Anglicans, then, yet again, he calls us to where we need to be; perhaps?

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

10-04-2007, 06:45 PM

Dear John, you wrote:

Do we know the earliest periods at which the writings of St Isaac came to be diffused in the West? I mean in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communities?

I am no scholar of the history of St Isaac, so feel ill-prepared to approach that aspect. But Dr Brock is a great expert, and I thought it perhaps pertinent to represent a few segments of his introduction to The Wisdom of Saint Isaac the Syrian (SLG Press, 1997/1999):

"St Isaac of Nineveh, or St Isaac the Syrian as he is often known, is a figure full of paradox. A hermit of the Assyrian Church of the East who lived in the seventh century, he is in the present century perhaps more influential than at any other time in history. In recent years his writings have been translated into a dozen or more different languages. On Mount Athos his works remain favourite monastic reading, and in Egypt their inspiration lies behind the monastic revival of the Coptic Orthodox Church during the last few decades. [...]

"Reactions to his teaching, however, have not always been favourable. Not long after his death some quarters within his own Church took objection to certain aspects of his teaching, and in the present century one eminent scholar dismissed his writings with the words, 'We see in him a milestone on the melancholy road whereby the Orient lapsed from Christianity into an unprogressive, uninventive barbarism, in which not even philosophy continued to flourish' [this being F.C. Burkitt in 1925 - MCS]. Yet for many people today St Isaac clearly does have the ability to speak directly over the span of thirteen centuries. Eloquent testimony to this is given by a young Greek Orthodox monk, whose words are quoted by Archimandrite Vasileios, of Stavronikita Monastery on Athos:

'I am reading St Isaac the Syrian. I find something true, heroic, spiritual in him; something which transcends space and time. I feel that here, for the first time, is a voice which resonates in the deepest parts of my being, hitherto closed an unknown to me. [...]'

"[...] Little is known of the circumstances of St Isaac's life. Like a number of other distinguished Syriac writers of the seventh century, St Isaac was born in the region of modern Qatar, on the Gulf. It must have been there that he received his early monastic training and education, when he will have first become familiar with the great writers on the spiritual life, both Syriac and Greek (in Syriac translation), men such as St Ephrem, John the Solitary, Evagrius, Macarius, Abba Isaiah, Mark the Monk and many others.

"The only fixed chronological point in his life was his consecration as bishop of Ninveveh (Mosul) be George, who was Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East from 661-681. St Isaac's episcopal career, however, was a brief one, since, 'for a reason which only God knows' (as one biographical writer put it) after only five months in office he retired to live the life of a hermit somewhere in the mountains of south-east Iraq, attached to the monastery of Rabban Shabur. There he appears to have lived to a great age, and it was perhaps only then that, at the urging of his spiritual disciples, he committed his teaching on so many different aspects of the spiritual life to writing.

"In the form in which they have been transmitted St Isaac's surviving works fall into a 'First Part' and a 'Second Part'. The First Part, which consists of eighty-two homilies, had a wide circulation, and was already by the eighth/ninth century read in monastic circles of other churches than his own, for it was approximately then that most of his collection of homilies was translated into Greek in the Orthodox monastery of St Saba in Palestine. Incorporated into this translation, and given under St Isaac's name, are give texts which are not in fact by him: four of these are by another, slightly later, monastic writer of the Church of the East, John the Elder (also known as John Saba, or John of Dalyatha), while the fifth is the abbreviated form of a letter on the spiritual life by the Syrian Orthodox theologian, Philoxenus of Mabbug, who died in 523."

From this, John, it seems that the circulation of St Isaac's writing was already flourishing enough in the Greek-speaking Orthodox works by the 8th/9th centuries (only 1-2 after his life) to warrant translation at the scriptorium of St Savvas -- so this would suggest a spread that began a fair bit earlier.

INXC, Matthew

Mary Christine Erikson

10-04-2007, 07:46 PM

conflicts - he did not participate directly in the conflicts, he did not
defend his church, he seems - unless his works were dishonestly
edited by orthodox copyists - to have presented orthodox material
by and large, yet he stayed loyal to his church, yet apparently felt
in common with orthodoxy.

This is a fact. It is also self contradictory behavior. Self contradictory
behavior in a person who is apparently virtuous and not playing some
hidden game, indicates internal self contradiction, and anyone who does
as much thinking as a monastic does and is not distracted by daily life
and debate and so forth, is going to see it and going to experience it
as conflict within him.

And since he was part of a church that was declared anathema - that
means, cut off from the church, which is usually seen as the only certain
locus of salvation, the kingdom of heaven on earth, it is therefore since
cut off, damned, cursed, doomed.

So if he took Orthodoxy and its church pronouncements seriously, and
he never denied them or supported his Nestorian church, yet he never
left his Nestorian church, and since he had great tenderness of heart
for animals being led to slaughter, one can imagine his groanings and
stressing over the possibility that his church is damned and he with it,
or, should he risk being damned if he left it and joined the true church,
who is damned, who is not, ah, the solution, God's wrath is an illusion,
we are all okay.

Isaac was a fence sitter at best. I haven't read all his words, but I
have never heard of him making either a defence of the Nestorian
Church, even if it and he did not preach classical Nestorianism he didn't
say so, nor have I heard that he promoted anything resembling ecumenism
or indifferentism specifically in reference to this dispute.

That he took off for Rome, another fact, and there dug into a church
until smacked upside the head by a monk figuring he was just a bum
camping out and exploiting the place, is a rather odd thing to do. In Rome,
he would be far removed from the location of the dispute, and not be
called on to formally accept any council or formally renounce any group.

That is the only explanation for his action.

This is not the behavior of a person who is not in dire internal conflict,
running from problems that half involve himself, and is not to be trusted
as a valid source.

Everything about him is suspicious. Even if the Nestorian church is not
damned and not outside of all or any of God's grace, that IS the perspective
that Orthodoxy then and mostly now would have and that he would know
of and leaves unaddressed. If he did not believe this to be true, why did
he not defend the Nestorian church? Why keep silent on the controversy?
Why be close enough to Orthodox to get his writings noticed in the first
place instead of staying in his own bailiwick?

Mary Christine Erikson

Peter Farrington

10-04-2007, 07:52 PM

I note that the text of the homilies used by Bedjan, Vatican Syriac 124, was from an Egyptian monastery, El Suriani, and is dated to the 14th century. So they were certainly in use there and then in Egypt.

Peter

M.C. Steenberg

10-04-2007, 08:25 PM

Dear Ms Erikson,

You've presented, in your above post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=43984&postcount=26), a collection of what in modern terms would be called simply unfounded slander. This is not to say that one cannot make valid criticisms, and challenge deeply questions about someone, such as St Isaac, with whom one has concerns, by delving into real questions of the evidence in texts, traditions, histories, et cetera. But this is not what you have done. Rather, this post is simply a collection of personal opinions grounded in, so far as I can see, not a single quotation or piece of historical data.

If you wish to engage constructively in a dialogue about this matter, this involves actually looking at genuine texts, authentic historical evidence, and the like. Please provide some of this to support any of the claims you are making, and then they can be addressed by others. Else they are simply groundless accusations and have no place in a fruitful discussion.

For example:

he did not participate directly in the conflicts, he did not defend his church

What is your evidence of this claim of his non-involvement? What standard of defence is it that he is purported to have failed to meet - and how do you know?

he seems - unless his works were dishonestly edited by orthodox copyists - to have presented orthodox material by and large, yet he stayed loyal to his church, yet apparently felt in common with orthodoxy.

Please provide the texts you are citing to support the claim that he 'apparently felt in common with orthodoxy'.

This is a fact. It is also self contradictory behavior.

It is not a fact simply because one says so. It is a fact if it is authentic and true, and that is discernable through engagement with Isaac's texts, the historical record, etc. Without such engagement, it is not fact but rumour, and in this case wholly personal opinion.

one can imagine his groanings and stressing over the possibility that his church is damned and he with it, or, should he risk being damned if he left it and joined the true church, who is damned, who is not, ah, the solution, God's wrath is an illusion, we are all okay.

It is inappropriate to engage in such imaginings (speculations) unless one has spent substantial enough time in the corpus to have gained some authentic familiarity with the circumstances and the individual -- and then one must be extremely cautious. But here this is simply flights of one's imaginings, not grounded in any specific witness or evidence of the texts.

Isaac was a fence sitter at best.

Please provide a quotation or piece of historical evidence for this dramatic claim.

That he took off for Rome, another fact, and there dug into a church until smacked upside the head by a monk figuring he was just a bum camping out and exploiting the place, is a rather odd thing to do.

Again, unless you've some testimony to what you're saying here, such a comment betray simply a prejudice and not a reading of anything approaching the historical record.

In general, Ms Erikson, such comments betrays only one's prejudices and misunderstandings, and do not engage fruitfully with the reality of the situation, ancient or modern. There are valid questions to be raised and criticisms to be made of St Isaac, and these should indeed be raised, and explored carefully for their implications in any manner of contexts. But without being willing to engage honestly with the heritage, there is no point.

I would recommend actually reading St Isaac, and several texts -- source and secondary -- on the period, the man, the context and the influence, before venturing to make sweeping pronouncements on matters that, until one has done that, one simply cannot understand. In the meantime, it is better to ask questions than make pronouncements.

INXC, Matthew

Mary Christine Erikson

10-04-2007, 08:38 PM

Dear Ms Erikson,

What is your evidence of this claim of his non-involvement? What standard of defence is it that he is purported to have failed to meet - and how do you know?

The fact he got onto the Orthodox saint lists at all, tells me he never did so, or he would have been tagged as a heretic and ignored. Online biographies are my sources.

Mary Christine Erikson

10-04-2007, 08:41 PM

They are classical assessment methods used by historians, psychologists, intelligence analysts, detectives, etc. As Judge Judy would say, "something does not make sense."

As for the specific details of his actions that I mention as "facts," look to online biographies for yourself.

Mary Christine Erikson

Tim Grass

10-04-2007, 08:48 PM

Online biographies are the refuge of those who won't actually take the time to learn the facts. They are notoriously inaccurate.

If you want to know about St. Isaac, read St. Isaac...... if you want to know the history, read the history.

They are classical assessment methods used by historians, psychologists, intelligence analysts, detectives, etc.

Mary, don't be silly..... you haven't done anything of the kind. Analysts base their analyses on the material they've actually studied. But when someone asks you to provide anything.... anything.... to substantiate the ridiculous things you're claiming, you just say:

As for the specific details of his actions that I mention as "facts," look to online biographies for yourself.

That about sums it up.

You shouldn't make such sweeping comments on subjects you clearly don't know anything at all about.

--tim

Herman Blaydoe

10-04-2007, 08:53 PM

As for the specific details of his actions that I mention as "facts," look to online biographies for yourself.

Please excuse my simple mind, but this sounds like a prosecutor saying to the defense: "the facts prove him guilty but you have to find the facts that do so for yourself!"

The fact he got onto the Orthodox saint lists at all,

So are you saying that this was a mistake? That God did not reveal St. Isaac to be a saint?

Please forgive me again, but your "logic" seems to merit Judge Judy's assessment. Historians, psychologists, intelligence analysts, detectives generally show how they came to their conclusions. As an engineer, if I simply say "that's a fact" without any proof, or worse yet, "look for it yourself" I would be run out of the conference room.

Renee Jones

10-04-2007, 11:56 PM

Ms. Erikson, is it possible that you have confused various saints with similar names? There is a St. Isaac the Syrian, abbot of Spoleto, who did indeed die in Italy and was beaten inside a church. He is not the same St. Isaac the Syrian of this discussion and his life does not fit entirely with your posts either. Could it be that a mixture of various stories and saints have been formed into a single "St. Isaac the Syrian" on some websites that you have read?

I am sorry if this is off-topic.

With love in Christ,
Renee

John Charmley

11-04-2007, 12:22 AM

Dear Mary Christine,

I wouldn't mind a reference to the on line biography that has St. Isaac ever being in Rome; whilst far from being an expert on St. Isaac, I have read most of the scholarly material written about him, and I have never come across such a reference.

What is known is that St. Isaac deliberately avoided writing on controversial subjects; not because he was a chronic fence-sitter, but because he had grave doubts about the effects on the soul of engaging in such discussions. As he himself wrote:

A cloud covers over the sun, and much discourse covers over the soul that has begun to receive illumination in contemplative prayer. [Homilies 45. B 326].
He also wrote:

Those who just grab at knowledge are themselves grabbed by pride: the more they study, the more darkened they become. [Keph. I.25]

These seem eminently good reason for the saint to avoid the controversies of the day.

We know too little of his life to make judgements about his 'Nestorianism' beyond the fact that the Church of the East, to which he belonged, was regarded by Chalcedonians as 'Nestorian'. What that meant in seventh century Mosul is something that requires far more investigation than it has been given thus far; there were certainly strands of 'Nestorianism' that looked to later generations like Eastern Orthodoxy. But even were we able to know more than we do now, it seems unlikely that it would be very helpful.

Labels such as 'Nestorianism' cover too much ground to be useful - except in polemics. We have to beware of a theological 'Orientalism', to use Said's controversial nomenclature. I am intrigued by what Matthew says about the very early circulation of his work, and it prompts me to go away and do some more digging. But we must beware of assuming that St. Isaac only started to matter when Eastern Orthodoxy discovered him a century after he had died. His works circulated in Syriac at the time, long before anyone in Eastern Orthodoxy knew about him; and they continued to circulate in Syriac even as edited Eastern Orthodox versions appeared, first in Palestine, and then further west.

We in the west have the very bad habit, no doubt picked up from past cultural assumptions about superiority, that unless we knew about about it, it didn't exist. Well, Syriac versions of the whole of St. Isaac's corpus have circulated in the east since his death; it has been of great benefit to us in the west, and in Russia, to have had exposure to his spiritual richness; but it has been circulating in what we now call the Middle East ever since he died.

I would have to say, as an historian, that any historian who proceeded on the basis of the methodology you outline would undoubtedly be hired by a T.V. company; which would be as well, as they would not find a job in academic life.

Can I leave us with another of St. Isaac's sayings:

God's mercifulness is far more extensive than we can conceive [XLI.2]
On that, we can, I trust, all agree.

In the Risen Christ,

John

Herman Blaydoe

11-04-2007, 01:28 AM

I suggest that someone take her own advice and do some more online research. She may find that she or her source has quite possibly conflated St. Isaac of Syria (January 28) with St. Isaac the Syrian (April 12), as Renee Jones has suggested. These things certainly can be confusing.

Google is a wonderful thing, Google is your friend, but look for corroboration from multiple reliable sources. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Libraries are still useful too! Does anybody besides me still visit libraries?

John Charmley

11-04-2007, 03:11 AM

Dear Mary Christine,

A little bit of on line 'research' reveals the following gem:

May I also quote a famous Russian patrologist Archbishop Basil Krivoshein here (forgive my translation):

"Based on the historical facts we know, St. Isaak was a Bishop of Nineveh for a short period of time while it was under jurisdiction of Nestorian Church of Persian Empire, and he lived all his life within this Church. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church venerates him as a saint and highly respects his spiritual writings that has no trace of Nestorianism. And I, of course, would not dare to question his sanctity, although the fact of his formal belonging to Nestorian Church presents the theology with a serious question on the nature of the Church and on the possibility of the presence of Grace and sanctity outside its visible boundaries."

The source? Another, and older, thread here at Monachos on St. Isaac.

As the Archbishop wisely comments, it does indeed raise serious questions - which deserve serious discussion. God loves us all; salvation is found only in His Church, yet sanctity has been found outside of it; who will circumscribe God's love and mercy? How can we avoid doing that if we believe that outside the Church all is heresy, schism and damnation? I am not sure what the answers to these things are, and suspect that the very assumptions which may lie behind such questions need questioning.

As St. Isaac writes:

Just because the terms 'wrath', 'anger', 'hatred' and the rest are used of the Creator in the Bible, we should not imagine that He actually does anything in anger, hatred or zeal. Many figurative terms are used of God in the scriptures, terms which are far removed from His true nature. [XXXXIX.19]
Do we find that challenging? Or is it that we are made uncomfortable when brought up against our own limitations. There are times, as this reminds us, when unconsciously, by using our own limited vocabulary and range of emotional responses, we run the risk of creating God in our image; forgetting in our prideful nature that we were created in His.

How like the counsel of Our Risen Lord and Saviour it is when St. Isaac reminds us:

Love sinners, but reject their deeds. Do not despise them because of their failings, lest you too find yourself tempted in the very same way. Remember that you too share in the stink of Adam, and that you too are clothed in the same weakness [Hom. 5,B79]

Indeed it is so. Let us be judged by His mercy, not our own deserts; if He were as limited as we are, none of us would be saved. But His love encompassed the voluntary sacrifice upon the Cross for our sake. In the face of that, humility, repentance - and love for each other - is all we can properly offer; that, and our prayers, each for the other - my sister in Christ, whose zeal for the faith burns through her posts.

In Christ,

John

Mary Christine Erikson

11-04-2007, 04:28 AM

Dear Mary Christine,

I would ask how can we be loyal to God and not to His Church and its teachings? Is this an Orthodox formulation?

If it is not an Orthodox formulation, then St. Maximos the Confessor was not engaged in an Orthodox formulation.

What is Orthodoxy? it is right belief. What is right belief? It is what the Dogmatic Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils say it is.

Scripture as interpreted by the Dogmatic Definitions and the early writers, is the standard. St. Maximos found that in his day "God's Church" was teaching as received tradition, indeed it probably WAS received from the previous teachers of this and receiving as tradition a rank heresy. The Mind of the Church was Arian.

And he wasn't about to put up with it.

Those Dogmatic Definitions are not canons, which are numbered separately from them. And they pronounce accursed whoever disagrees regardless of their status or size of population.

When you write

I am uneasy, since Chalcedon was based around the Christology in the 433 formula of Reunion, and is certainly not simply Antiochene; .....

I didn't write that. Someone else here did. I am not apparently the only one here thinking in terms of the Dogmatic Definitions of the church as distinct from just whatever people who are technically orthodox are doing and thinking at the moment.

As for St. Cyril and the 'One Incarnate Nature of the Word', as Professor McGuckin conclusively shows in his seminal work on St. Cyril and the Christological controversy, there is nothing in his understanding of that phrase which is not Orthodox;

I didn't say that it wasn't. I said it is now used in an unorthodox way, and in fact came from a source that made this phrase for an unorthodox purpose, and Cyril was mistaken in his choice of words.

just because it came from a dodgy source did not make the saint's use of it so. Indeed, I can think of no modern commentator on these matters who would disagree with McGuckin.

You missed my point. I said that he thought it was from Athanasius, and he claimed to uphold Athanasius in all things, and he therefore intended it in an Orthodox sense. The phrase unfortunately has lent itself to monophysite interpretations, and is routinely cited by them to prove that they are loyal to the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria.

I have read this repeatedly.

St. Cyril, took the view that there were two natures in one hypostasis, with particular meanings attached to both words; meanings which were not understood in that way by the Antiochenes. The formula of Reunion showed how much both St. Cyril and John of Antioch came towards realising their earlier misunderstandings. It is a shame that those who came after these great men lacked their intellectual stature and spiritual humility.

In that case apparently an acutal misunderstanding existed, not a dyed in the wool heresy. Antiochian interpretation style was never rejected, however, merely the result of a problem that arose during
a change in the language such as went on between Elizabethan and modern English. For instance, in the former "let" means to hinder, while in modern English "let" means allow.

The condemnation of Dioscorus at Chalcedon was not for his unorthodoxy, by the way,

It was for his refusal to come to be judged about his accused heresies, and it was pointed out that he must have been guilty or he would have come forward to defend his position. And adroit game got played regarding him.

In any case, he was never a saint among Orthodox, he was deposed.

and the Copts have always confessed two natures before the union.

And what is the point of that? For them to confess two natures BEFORE the union is at most to admit that human and divine nature are distinct, which is a given. But to say that Jesus had both these
natures before the union would be a heresy already denounced somewhere, that the human nature or flesh of Jesus had its origin heaven along with His divine nature.

the whole issue of the Two vs. One Nature argument is precisely about the time AFTER the union. That is the only time frame that matters, unless you want to revive the heresy of Christ's human nature being from heaven along with His divine nature.

It is simple misdirection.

Mary Christine Erikson

11-04-2007, 01:44 PM

With respect Mary, you really have no idea what you are talking about in regard to Oriental Orthodoxy, and everything you have said about Oriental Orthodoxy is false.

Every time I refer you to the writings of Pope Shenouda III, and
the Chambesy Agreement which contains the theoria caveat
which effectively undoes the apparent acceptance of Two
Natures Christology,

it gets deleted.

Also, the fact that Nestorianism is NOT "Oriental Orthodoxy"
the latter being monophysitism which claims to be the sole
defender against Nestorianism, gets deleted.

the excuse is that this involves inter church dialog, but it
does not do so, and other posts which almost as much potential
for inter church dialog issues incl. ANYTHING about Nestorianism,
get to stay.

Because of this, I have come to the conclusion that monachos
is essentially dishonest and is operating to promote the
deception of the Orthodox that monophysites are not monophysite,
thus smoothing their reception into world Orthodoxy and eventually
being acceptable in our seminaries (St. Vlad's already has an
Armenian, presumably monophysite, on board I have read somewhere),
and thus to lead the church into heresy.

that this is not impossible to do, is hinted at by Jesus in Luke

Fr Raphael Vereshack

11-04-2007, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Mary Erikson:

Every time I refer you to the writings of Pope Shenouda III, and
the Chambesy Agreement which contains the theoria caveat
which effectively undoes the apparent acceptance of Two
Natures Christology,

it gets deleted.

Also, the fact that Nestorianism is NOT "Oriental Orthodoxy"
the latter being monophysitism which claims to be the sole
defender against Nestorianism, gets deleted.

the excuse is that this involves inter church dialog, but it
does not do so, and other posts which almost as much potential
for inter church dialog issues incl. ANYTHING about Nestorianism,
get to stay.

Because of this, I have come to the conclusion that monachos
is essentially dishonest and is operating to promote the
deception of the Orthodox that monophysites are not monophysite,
thus smoothing their reception into world Orthodoxy and eventually
being acceptable in our seminaries (St. Vlad's already has an
Armenian, presumably monophysite, on board I have read somewhere),
and thus to lead the church into heresy.

that this is not impossible to do, is hinted at by Jesus in Luke.

Dear Mary,

I have taken the liberty of allowing this post (I am one of the co-moderators here at Monachos) so as to answer it myself.

As a regular participant I can categorically say that there is no hidden or even open official agenda of Monachos concerning this issue. Yes, for the sake of clarity to posters, this is an openly Chalcedonian forum. But this does not mean we have any official policy on this question.

For example in the past quite a few posters have openly expressed reservation about the prospect of immediate union between the EO & OO. These views were allowed to be expressed.

If I could just add here: as someone who has in the past expressed in many posts some of these reservations myself I find nothing at all dishonest in those who disagree with it. Others are only trying to say they find there are no longer substantial issues to divide us.

Now agree or not with this, still there is nothing dishonest about this view at all.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

11-04-2007, 03:20 PM

Dear all, above, Ms Erikson wrote:

Every time I refer you to the writings of Pope Shenouda III, and the Chambesy Agreement which contains the theoria caveat which effectively undoes the apparent acceptance of Two
Natures Christology, it gets deleted.

[...] Because of this, I have come to the conclusion that monachos is essentially dishonest and is operating to promote the deception of the Orthodox that monophysites are not monophysite, thus smoothing their reception into world Orthodoxy

I do not wish to have this thread side-track into a separate issue regarding the focus of Monachos.net, the Community or its policies (those who wish are of course more than welcome to raise such matters in the appropriate About the Forum section of the Community); but I will say just the following:

As to reasons individual posts are deleted / rejected, these are spelt out to the submitter at the time. Such details are private, and I am not willing to comment here in public on the specific reasons certain posts by you or another were rejected in moderation.

But on a general note: any post which is polemical in nature will be rejected, always, no matter what point of view is represented therein, and no matter whether any or all of the other contents of the message may be valid, true, righteous and beneficial. If it contains polemic, it will be deleted, end of story. Submitting a series of messages that contain related themes, yet mingle them with polemic, will result in all such posts being deleted - not as some conspiracy against the themes, but against the polemic. This is a non-negotiable and inflexible rule of the forum. If one wishes to make constructive points, including valid criticisms of certain beliefs, points of view, practices, etc., that is most welcome - but on Monachos.net this will not be done polemically. There are better, more Christian ways of getting one's point across.

As to inter-church dialogue: this is not the focus of the forum. There is absolutely nothing against discussions of dyphysitism / monophysitism / miaphysitism as patristic issues; but if discussions deal principally with modern-day bodies (e.g. Eastern Orthodox vis-a-vis Oriental Orthodox), this falls outside the scope of the forum and such discussions will be terminated. This is not a conspiratorial or secret act: it is spelled out in black-and-white in our Terms of Use (http://www.monachos.net/forum/faq.php?faq=mb_tos), a link to which is found on every page of the forum, and which all poster's explicitly agreed to abide by during the registration process. If people are interested in discussing such matters (which are valid, useful and necessary), there are other fora that exist for that purpose. Monachos.net is not one of these, as it has its own focus, and it will remain on this focus as part of its purview.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

11-04-2007, 03:35 PM

Dear Mary

I will pass over most of your rather heated post, but at least allow me to post a section from the 5th ecumenical council, which you will be accepting as you finish your catechumenate.

It says...

If anyone using the expression, “in two natures,” does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; .. [and] .. does not content himself with taking in theoria only ( τῇ θεωρίᾳ μόνῃ ). the difference of the natures which compose him, ... let him be anathema.

This is the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Theoria does not mean 'in theory' in our modern usage, and certainly does not mean such in the Oriental Orthodox tradition nor in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. It means rather 'by contemplation'. 'by careful consideration', and has a moral quality, and is related to spiritual vision. It does not mean 'in theory' as we use that phrase in English.

Peter

Rick H.

11-04-2007, 03:41 PM

Peter,

Very very good. Thank you. Amen.

In Christ,
Rick

Nina

11-04-2007, 05:03 PM

Theoria does not mean 'in theory' in our modern usage, and certainly does not mean such in the Oriental Orthodox tradition nor in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. It means rather 'by contemplation'. 'by careful consideration', and has a moral quality, and is related to spiritual vision. It does not mean 'in theory' as we use that phrase in English.
Peter

Christ is Risen!

Peter, I would like to add something to what you say about θεωρία (theory). Although for the sake of fairness, I must admit that sometime I use certain English words - for which I have a preconceived linguistic idea about their denotation because of their origin from other languages - only to be surprised afterwards with their acquired English meaning (sometime completely different), or nuances. Thank you for reminding us because it is indeed a good linguistic lesson that we should keep in mind and for this burden (that may help us further our humility) we have to thank the "masterminds" of Babel.

Back to theoria. I would like to share something from the book Monastic Wisdom: The Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast (pp. 408-409)

"Theoria (θεωρία):

Theoria is the "vision of the spirit" or "a non-sensible revelation of the nous" (St. Isaac the Syrian) through which one attains spiritual knowledge. That is, through theoria, the Holy Spirit grants one understanding of the mysteries of God and creation which are hidden to the rational human intellect. Knowledge stemming from theoria is revelation from above. Theoria is not intellectual work, but an operation of the Holy Spirit which opens the eyes of the souls to behold mysteries. The Church Fathers often contrast it with praxis which is an indispensable prerequisite of theoria. In the first stage of theoria, the prayer is said without distraction and with a sense of the presence of God with love, peace, mourning, etc. In the next stage, the nous proceeds to feel what Adam felt in paradise before the Fall, and it sees spiritually how all nature glorifies God. Furthermore, it sees His omnipotence, omniscience, and providence therein. By St. Maximus the Confessor, this is called perceiving the inner essences or principles of created beings (Philokalia, vol. II, p.69). In the final stage of theoria, one beholds God Himself in uncreated light. (On Prayer, Philokalia, vol. I, Evagrios the Solitary, p.61). See also contemplation."

"Contemplation (θεωρία):
The Holy Fathers use the word θεωρία (theh-oh-ree'ah) in three different ways. Its first meaning is simply "seeing" or "beholding" physically. Its second meaning metaphorically refers to intellectual perception, that is: "consideration," "speculation," and "philosophical contemplation." In this case, we chose to translate θεωρία with the word "contemplation." Its third meaning refers to noetic contemplation which is the highest state of prayer. When used in reference to this noetic contemplation, we merely transliterated the word as "theoria," instead of using the term "contemplation," to avoid confusion with the second meaning of the word, i.e. intellectual contemplation. See also theoria." (p. 396)

Peter Farrington

11-04-2007, 05:17 PM

Dear Nina

Thank you very much for posting that passage by Elder Joseph, because it explains clearly what I was fumbling to express without having any references to draw on here at my desk.

I have the same problem with preconceived ideas about the meaning of words which is very apparent to me at the moment as I am slowly reading through a whole load of Oriental Fathers in French. I keep thinking I know exactly what a verb must mean because it looks like an English word, but I keep getting tripped up because the French sometimes preserves an entirely different meaning which has been lost or has changed in English.

Thanks again for the helpful and illuminating quotations.

Peter

Nina

11-04-2007, 05:37 PM

for posting that passage by Elder Joseph,

Peter

Christ is Risen!

Peter, I have to ask forgiveness (to all) for forgetting to mention that those passages are from the Glossary section of that book. I am not sure if Elder Joseph wrote them personally (without forgetting that he speaks a lot about theoria in his letters). I assume not, but it is of course the knowledge passed on from him and our Holy Fathers. Since it is apparent that who composed the Glossary draws from that knowledge. This is very important(!), along with the fact that the translator (I guess) who compiled the Glossary of that book, is extremely aware of the many traps of translation, especially that of spiritual texts. I appreciate very much that explanation because it recovers much meaning lost in translation.

Matthew Panchisin

11-04-2007, 06:20 PM

Christ is Risen!

It would be very wrong to accuse a scribe of changing Holy writ if His perception is different than ours. Throw him out of scribers row, punish
him in exile to Gutenberg to work on some mechanical presses. It wouldn't matter his joy can't be taken from him no matter what people say.

The reality for Saint Isaac is to see things not in historical settings but rather in Christ who transcends all by love. I think that is why centuries after his death his words are very much alive. I think that is the most important thing about translations aka transfigurations, a good thing for all of us to keep in mind.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,

For God so loves the world that He gives His only begotton Son,

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

John Charmley

11-04-2007, 06:33 PM

Dear Matthew,

Very helpful comments, for which many thanks.

I am interested in the dichotomy, which sometimes appears here, and is implied in your excellent post, between the historical setting and the Christian one; interested because I am not sure that it is real - although I can see, given the historical contexts we often have to work with, why people might think that way.

I am told by those who can read the original Syriac that there is a clear difference between the original of what we have as the first volume of the work of St. Isaac, and the versions that began to appear in the west a hundred or so years later. That was natural, given the sensitivities of the Eastern Orthodox scribes to hints of Nestorianism. That is not to say that there was Nestorianism, just that there were those scribes who thought they perceived it - and edited it out.

That was often the way scribes worked, and why we have variant readings - and why pedants like me have a job! No need to throw the poor chaps out on their ears.

No need, either, not to do what you suggest, which is to do a proper reading in the full Christian context. That which the Church has received and hallowed is food for the soul, and we can read it as such. History ought not to be in opposition to Faith; where it is, I tend to suspect the history.

There are times when we give the impression that we are almost frightened of history. It is true that just as with texts, there are variant readings of events, but we must not think that we shall find certainty; although we may, if we persevere, perceive Truth.

As I say, interesting questions raised in what you say; but as we have seen already, St. Isaac tends to do that with us.

In Christ,

John

Matthew Panchisin

11-04-2007, 08:16 PM

Dear John,

At the risk of wondering off topic here, I think the dichotomy between the historical setting and the Christian one can be real. If you go sit in the library of Alexandria looking for ancient historical text, Christian, that is not there anymore a Christian historian might find a dichotomy that is real. Perhaps a Christian historian could write a paper on the Book of Revelation from a historical setting and not run into many problems understanding things?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Peter Farrington

11-04-2007, 09:10 PM

Dear Matthew

Could you explain a little more what you mean? I am tired after a day at work and can't completely pick up what you mean.

Many thanks

Peter

Paul Cowan

12-04-2007, 04:02 AM

Dear Mary Erikson:

I have purposely not posted on this thread simply because I have no knowledge of its history or access to ANY of the data the historians and scholars are referring to.

You wrote:

...operating to promote the
deception of the Orthodox that monophysites are not monophysite,
thus smoothing their reception into world Orthodoxy and eventually
being acceptable in our seminaries (St. Vlad's already has an
Armenian, presumably monophysite, on board I have read somewhere),
and thus to lead the church into heresy.

Dr. Matthew has written:

...a collection of what in modern terms would be called simply unfounded slander.

But here this is simply flights of one's imaginings, not grounded in any specific witness or evidence...

It is not a fact simply because one says so. It is a fact if it is authentic and true, and that is discernable through engagement with Isaac's texts, the historical record, etc. Without such engagement, it is not fact but rumour, and in this case wholly personal opinion.

I have found your writings rude and unfounded as many others have here. I would encourage you to sit back and listen for awhile before others are led astray from your unfounded accusations and conspiracy theories.

I am quoting this from the "Unseen Warfare" as edited by Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and revised by Theophan the recluse. pg. 145 'On Control of the Tongue'

While conversing, remember and try to follow the precept of St. Thalassius who says: "Of the five attitudes in conversation with others, use the first three with discrimination and without fear; use the fourth infrequently and refrain from using the fifth altogether" (Philokalia, the first century, 69). One writer understands the first three as follows: 'yes', 'no', 'of course' or 'this is clearly so'; by the fourth, he understands doubtful things and by the fifth, things totally unknown. In other words, about things you know for certain to be true or false or self evident speak with conviction, saying that they are true or false or self evident. About doubtful things better say nothing, but when necessary say that they are doubtful and reserve your judgement. Of that you know nothing, say nothing.

I am not saying this, the Holy Fathers are. I have quoted the source. I think other posters expect no less from you or any other member of Monachos when putting forth thoughts and ideas. You can see it repeatedly requested on the "deeper" discussions on the site. The fact that other posters are keeping an open mind to your ideas waiting on you to supply proof of your words speaks to the fact they have read the above passage from "Unseen Warfare" namely number 4.

I ask forgiveness for my audacity to think I can speak on behalf of others. I am a simple minded person and am swept away with pretty words. It is frustrating to learn they were wrong when proof is given after the fact.

My entire religious walk was just this same frustration finding a new church that was proving my previous church to be in error. Thanks be to God the Orthodox Church is the end all of all searching.

Apologetically,

Paul

PS: If a moderator deems this inappropriate, please delete it. Thank you

Mary Christine Erikson

12-04-2007, 08:00 AM

Dear Mary

I will pass over most of your rather heated post, but at least allow me to post a section from the 5th ecumenical council, which you will be accepting as you finish your catechumenate.

It says...

This is the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Theoria does not mean 'in theory' in our modern usage, and certainly does not mean such in the Oriental Orthodox tradition nor in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. It means rather 'by contemplation'. 'by careful consideration', and has a moral quality, and is related to spiritual vision. It does not mean 'in theory' as we use that phrase in English.

Peter

First, let me concede and apologize that indeed I have confused Isaac the
Syrian, aka of Syria, aka of Nineveh with Isaac the Syrian of Spoleto.
However, his retention of Nestorian church membership doesn't speak well
to him, assuming that the Nestorians were not in fact largely slandered,
albeit the idea ascribed to them was indeed false and dangerous.

In any case, if for whatever reason, he spoke as he has been quoted to
support Kalomiros, in terms of the Last Judgement and not in terms of
temporal or post mortem discipline, then he was definitely wrong. And if
he did not mean that, then he has been misquoted.

Second, the theoria matter.

The entire quote that you excerpt above, goes like this:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-114.htm#TopOfPage
"VII.

IF anyone using the expression, "in two natures," does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner2 the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.3 "

Apparently it DOES have "theoretical" as a translation, but in any case this
is milder than the more dangerous contemplative theoria concept.

It is made clear, that the theoria or theoretical or contemplation, is to be
such that while the Two Natures are indeed taken literally, they are NOT so
focussed on as to their distinction in such a way as to promote and demand
that Christ be viewed as a chimera with a multiple personality disorder.

The theoria caveat examined and denounced by some Orthodox critic of
the Chambesy Agreement, would say that the natures are distinct in theory
and contemplation, a mere tool to start a description or something, but are
not a serious distinction at all.

And that all distinction being denied beyond the distinction of one facet of
a cut stone from another is indeed intended by the "Oriental Orthodox" is
shown by their insistance that they acknowledge two natures BEFORE the
union, which is nonsense at best, heresy at worst. Christ had one nature
before the union, and two natures after. He remained the same person.

The following statement highlights the issue of not viewing Him as either
two persons in one body, or as some chimeric mixup.

"VIII.

IF anyone uses the expression "of two natures," confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery."

The next statement strikes more directly at the monophysite-monothelite-monergist position. go past the continuing denunciation of nestorian
tendencies, and note the last part.

"IF anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence (fusin hgoun ousian) of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema."

To repeat, "...or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence (fusin hgoun ousian) of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema."

This one nature of essence of the united natures, is precisely what the
modern monophysites preach, "one incarnate nature." Sure, they admit
that flesh got in the mix somewhere, but that after the joining it is one
nature, not two. It is divine and it is human, but it is still one not two,
the union they describe, using Orthodox phrasing in an unorthodox
manner, is way beyond what is allowed.

This use of words in a deceptive or misdirecting way, was what the
earlier councils had to contend with, and solved with the use of the
Greek word that though not Biblical itself was the best way of precisely
phrasing what The Bible's record of Apostolic teaching (necessary to
make sure the tradition did not get changed accidentally or deliberately)
was saying.

Finally I would like to refer you all to the following aritcles, and I will post
no more on monophysitism at least for now, assuming this doesn't get
deleted. I think St. John of Damascus and his expositors do a better job
than I do.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zisis.pdf

scroll down to page 7

Mary Christine Erikson

Mary Christine Erikson

13-04-2007, 03:00 AM

The point is taken more than once that nothing is determined from
Isaac's writings.

What IS obvious is that IF Isaac's writings ever included defense of
Nestorianism as a legitimate doctrine, OR defense of the Nestorian
church as not teaching nestorianism, it would have been noticed by
the Orthodox and he would have been shut out of acceptable reading
material as part of something already anathematized.

Since he was not so shut out, he obviously made no such defense.

Since he was a saint in the Nestorian church also, it follows he
never repudiated them and accepted the Orthodox Ecumenical
Councils and aligned himself with the Orthodox church. It is stated
over and over in all sources that he remained canonically Nestorian.

That is all that anyone in their right mind needs to know.

Meanwhile, since I notice that one of the councils was quoted leaving
out the bit that defined just what their intention regarding theoria
was left out, I suppose it is possible Isaac is being quoted with some
detail left out also.

If you or others can't find the sources I put up links to, or write out
a title of, that is not because I didn't post it, unless it is was in a post
that was deleted.

I recall reading that some Orthodox elder described himself as both
horrified and glad that the Philokalia was in print, available without
supervision to anyone, and perhaps some of what I am concerned
about is a result of such unsupervised use of dicey materials, not all
of which even if from strictly Orthodox sources, can be safely applied
out of context and across the board. What flies in isolation and a
monastery won't necessarily in the city. I understand even Origen
is in the philokalia. Just because he said some halfway useful things
does not mean that within the nonheretical materials are not things
that seem beautiful but have the seeds of problematic stuff within
them, if only in the altered consciousness mindset that accepts
everything in a "non judgemental" unquestioning way.

Quite the opposite of what Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said, "be wise
as serpents and gentle as doves."

From what I gather, Origen is to Orthodoxy the same sort of internal
plague that Aquinas is to Roman Catholicism.

Mary Christine Erikson

Peter Farrington

13-04-2007, 03:34 PM

Dear Mary

I will not respond to your polemical tone.

But you are completely incorrect when you accuse me and the communion I belong to of teaching that Christ is one ousia.

I will not say anything stronger, save to say that I find your subsequent posts as ill-informed as your first, and equally as libellous. It is shocking that you are willing to defame the faith of those about whom you know nothing. But since you are also willing to denigrate St Isaac and St Cyril I am not surprised.

Do please heed the advice of others and study some more before posting mere opinion. Reading articles online is not the same as study. Reading polemical material on orthodoxinfo is especially not the same as study.

Peter

Matthew Panchisin

13-04-2007, 04:43 PM

Dear Matthew

Could you explain a little more what you mean? I am tired after a day at work and can't completely pick up what you mean.

Many thanks

Peter

Dear Peter,

I'm sorry about that, in retrospect when I wrote things had been clear to me as to what I meant exactly. Nevertheless I think my thinking was along the lines that Christian dichotomies must be real, historical and otherwise. We are to be in the world but not of the world. What difference does the historical setting matter if we do not hear and understand the word, God? That is the most important matter.

I think we can call to mind what Christ said to Nicodemus whose perspective was perhaps "historical"?

How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In Christ, the incarnation, everything changes for us, not just our perceptions but our reality.
The things of heaven are united with men, the Church is triumphant and militant.

The question at hand, is Saint Issacc a Nestorian or why the Orthodox Church is very fond of his writings points to a truth, namely that the Holy Spirit, the Helper whom the Father sends in Christ's name teaches us and guides the Church. Christ restores us, our fallen nature, and the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth brings to remembrance all things in Christ.

We have seen during great lent and during the "Paschaltide" that the Church is always the sovereign, triumphant. We often find it difficult to struggle against some very basic passions as such we must admit that we might error in determinations such as Saint Isaac's status irrespective of historical considerations and our limited intellectual abilities.

We too can see how Christ and His bride the Church are always triumphant. A good example is during the Liturgy the Priest says; "Holy things are for the holy" before we receive the Eucharist. Even when we might think, "wait a minute I'm not holy etc." The Priest cries out; "In the fear of God with faith and love come forward." So on the one hand the Church is saying that Holy things are for the holy even though my status is often very suspect, on the other hand is the Priest holding the chalice. Christ and the Church are both militant and triumphant as reconciliation happens within the Church even when we know we are falling short. It is the operation of the Holy Spirit, the helper, the comforter whom the Father sends in Christ's name that makes up for that which might be lacking in us. We can see the good shepherd, Christ whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light, that is within the radiant Church.

Shine, shine new Jerusalem! For the glory of the Lord has dawned over you. Dance now and be glad, Sion; as for you, pure One, rejoice in the resurrection of your child.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

John Charmley

13-04-2007, 05:27 PM

Dear Matthew,

Many thanks for your most interesting elucidation, which I find both persuasive and thoughtful; nor do I dissent from it. However, it stops short (and no reason why it should not) of providing what is needful for there to be a Christian historical perspective. To stop at the dichotomy you mention is understandable for the reasons given; but it concedes the ground to the enemy - with the effects we see all about us on the faithful. If we have to retreat form engagement with history then we end up looking a little like some of those Islamic fundamentalists who brush aside inconvenient historical findings as irrelevant to a sincerely held faith. Fine within the Madrases, but cultic from outside.

Our Christian faith is the result of the greatest event in all of human history; indeed the only event that really matters - the resurrection of the Lord. Our Orthodox beliefs are founded upon that, and upon the faith once delivered to the Apostles and handed down since their day. The early Church constantly asked, as we do today: 'by what authority do you say these things?' It looked back, as all the Fathers do, to the Apostles. Not only was it historically based, it was history - as Eusebius showed. Patristics is founded on a sense of Christian history. Reading that history as a simple triumph is true at one level, but inadequate at another.

If we take the subject of this thread. Mary Christine is reading St. Isaac as a Nestorian, has a concept based upon one reading of what means, which she brings to bear on the subject, and comes to conclusions that are understandable given the premises. We can deconstruct those premises through historical enquiries which reveal how St. Isaac came to be accepted by all who call themselves Orthodox as a saint.

Of course you are correct, Matthew, to see the work of the Spirit here, but that is not incompatible with showing the instruments which were used by the Spirit. We may even be led, through this example, to examine what Nestorianism might mean, and through that to an understanding of the problematic nature of such labels. Through that we might be led to a more humble attitude towards others, and to a consciousness that we cannot pretend to circumscribe the love of the Risen Lord. Or, then again, we might not!

So I do not think we are in contention here at all.

I come at this with the knowledge of how far short historians fall of providing an alternative reading of the workings of the Holy Spirit - or of providing one at all. Too often we leave it to those who compile Internet sites where 'research' is instant - and with a bias. Can we write Christian history any more? Plenty is written about the history of Christianity - but that isn't the same thing at all.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

13-04-2007, 06:15 PM

Dear all,

If I have understood Matthew P.'s post correctly (and I've only as yet read it once), it touches on something important; namely, the need to understand 'history' in theological terms. This has been touched on elsewhere in the forum before, but it is a recurring and important concept - that in Christ history is Christocentric; and that being grounded in Christ who is 'one of the Holy Trinity', is therefore trinitarian. It is only in the revelation of God that history as event finds its truth.

At its truest, this means -- as should come as no surprise to those who read the fathers -- that the truth of history is ultimately the fruit of prayer and communion. But at the very least, it must remind all of us that two extremes are to be avoided: the first is to read history simply as a collection of data, as if it were able to know all the data and thus know all the meaning. The second is to absent oneself wholly from the events, as if meaning were discernible without them. The first denies the true theology of the cosmos as God has fashioned it. The second belittles the incarnation.

On the present topic, understanding the place, teaching, etc., of St Isaac cannot be absented from the events of the history of his life -- any more than Christ can be understood in ignorance of the reality of his incarnation. But it cannot be wholly 'historical re-creation'.

With thanks for the thought-provoking post.

INXC, Matthew

Matthew Panchisin

13-04-2007, 06:30 PM

Dear Matthew,

I was just composing and about to post this, I have just read what you have mentioned above, as such we had been on the same page around the same time it seems.

Dear John,

I do not mean to be implying that we should retreat form engagement with history or discounting history in anyway, that's is not possible for the sane. I'm aware that the word became flesh, the instruments, the cross and places. To dismiss them or even reduce those realities would be rather false. Certainly even historic cultural traditions can lead us to a more profound understanding of Christ, the Church and one another. In Saint Issacc's culture for a Father to run out to greet and welcome a child that was returning from reckless living is unheard of, let alone to kill the fatted calf.

As you know there are two forms of research scholars will use, primary (looking at original text or facts directly) and secondary (understanding things from another's knowledge or readings etc.) The reality is of misunderstandings, incorrect conclusions etc. are often drawn. Conversely correct ones can be rendered as long as the truth is most important. Short of an authentic and sincere Christian "introspection" if you will Truth remains elusive. Hence the Orthodox Churches reliance on Her patristic traditions which includes the call for us to embrace the Church fully.

The Christian view of history will be different than other views of history or rather correctly or more fully discerned in the Church, for Grace and Truth comes through Jesus Christ. The dichotomy is real between the historical setting and the Christian one particularly when the historical perspective has great limitations even for Christians short of the realm that we can see that the Church Fathers see things through, namely sanctification within the Church.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

M.C. Steenberg

13-04-2007, 08:27 PM

My thanks to both Matthew and John for the further thoughts in this thread.

In assessing the legacy of someone such as St Isaac, there is clearly more at stake than 'just the facts'; while just as clearly assessments made without the facts are not in fact assessments but assumptions. And most human assumptions are prejudices of one form or another.

In a real sense, this is why such assessment of a person is part of the mind of the Church -- and that is a mind imbued in communion with the God at her head. It is in this realm that real assessment can be made, and truths perceived that cannot simply be gleaned from a web page or document - for truth is ultimately a living thing.

INXC, Matthew

John Charmley

13-04-2007, 10:01 PM

Dear Matthew and Matthew (sounds like a firm of lawyers!),

I am, as we all are, much in your debt for some most helpful and stimulating posts.

What I suppose I am wary of is anything that could look like the following: 'well, that may be what historians say, but this is what the Church teaches - so much the worse for history'. Indeed, on one of the St. Isaac threads we did get pretty close to this at one point. To stop being 'nice', this is pure obscurantism and does no credit to anyone. To even imply that what the Church teaches is not grounded in sound historical research is, to my way of thinking, an odd thing to want to do. Those outside the Faith will have their prejudices about us confirmed.

I am not, let me hasten to add, saying that is what either of you are saying, because it is not; but I hope I am not guying things when I say that I have come across this point of view.

If history seems not to confirm what the Church teaches then the answer is for Christian historians to find where the historians got it wrong; the Church cannot, and does not, teach error.

The delicious lines from Dr. Steenberg

there is clearly more at stake than 'just the facts'; while just as clearly assessments made without the facts are not in fact assessments but assumptions
will have his colleagues in the History faculty knocking on his door to engage in dialogue about the nature of 'facts'; time to sport the oak there, perhaps?

E.H. Carr once wrote that 'history is a core of interpretation surrounded by a host of disputable facts'; he was, as was his wont, being perverse - but he was on to something.

Matthew P.'s excellent statement that

Hence the Orthodox Churches reliance on Her patristic traditions which includes the call for us to embrace the Church fully
points me towards the broader truth that those traditions embrace The Truth. They are a source, like all our sources, and historians need to respect their integrity; as the best among them do. From this point of view I become less convinced than I am at first sight that

The dichotomy is real between the historical setting and the Christian one

Our perception that it is so is a sign of two things: the limitations of the history we are presented with; and the need for a Christian history, as opposed to a history of Christianity. This last needs to embrace Matthew S's acute perception that

On the present topic, understanding the place, teaching, etc., of St Isaac cannot be absented from the events of the history of his life -- any more than Christ can be understood in ignorance of the reality of his incarnation. But it cannot be wholly 'historical re-creation'.

But, rushed for time at the moment, I shall have to beg your indulgence to return to this fascinating topic - and thank you both.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-04-2007, 11:03 PM

But this still leaves us with the question: does history show that St Isaac is a full blooded Nestorian or not?

If I understood Mary's posts this indeed is what history can and has argued from 'the facts'. At least this is how I have read this 'proof' a number of times from others also.

But then, sorry to say to history, (I was also trained in history at university and still love reading it) so what if history with its peculiar presentation of what it takes to be reality, completely disagrees with the understanding of the Church?

Why should history shake the knowledge of the Church which really is quite certain that St Isaac is no more a Nestorian than Origen is actually a Buddhist?

No- history is one type of knowledge. Not of no use, certainly not. But it still is firmly human knowledge even when inspired unless we distort the meaning of the word history altogether ( quite the irony to detach history from its historical context so that it no longer has historical meaning anymore).

Theological understanding however as found within the Church is something most different. This understanding isn't the replacement of historical vision with religious historical vision. It is a resurrected noetic vision. It is the fulfillment of every spark which presently we are mostly blind to due to falleness & passion. And right now its most fulfilled expression is found in the icon and lives of the saints.

This brings me to something I had not considered fully enough before. In a number of books I have read recently it was stated that knowledge within the Church comes from the illumined and/or those who trust these latter.

So for those of us trying to at least cling to this secondary level shouldn't we trust the portrayal of these illumined ones of those like St Isaac as the authentic vision?

If so then I prefer to argue in reverse from the normal historical order looking first to the vision and then finding what in the past corresponds to this or may have led to it.

Anything else and I think that actually we are not talking about reality at all even if supported by myriad 'facts of history' but mainly reflections of our distorted imagination.

Which takes us full circle- again to one who loves reading history- to the dangers of history read in and for itself.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

13-04-2007, 11:39 PM

Dear all

I don't know whether history shows that St Isaac was a full-blooded Nestorian or not. That very phrase 'full-blooded Nestorian' is itself liable to all manner of interpretations and understandings.

But history does show us irrefutably that St Isaac was not a member of the visible Eastern Orthodox Church.

But on this forum it has been stated that outside of the visible membership of Eastern Orthodoxy is only darkness, confusion, delusion.

This surely requires more than a confidence that the Church knows who is really Orthodox, because if St Isaac, who was never a visible member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, can be called Orthodox by the Church; while those who are outside visible membership of the Eastern Orthodox Church are considered not properly Christian by the same Church, then some lesson is there to be learned. It can't be as black and white as we would like.

This is surely why there are many other saints who are commemorated by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The Empress Theodora, the founding saints of the Georgian Church, and others. This is why some of the writings of Severus, Philoxenus and other Oriental Orthodox entered the Eastern Orthodox tradition under other names. It is just not possible to be black and white, and when we insist that we know the limits of God's grace, and of his community, we are found to be mistaken.

Peter

Father David Moser

13-04-2007, 11:41 PM

This whole discussion has provoked me to thought somewhat on the nature of the Church and how St Isaac can be a saint of the Church and yet be found within a technically Nestorian group. I keep coming back to St Justin Popovich where he constantly reminds us that the Church is not a human organization, but a Divine/human organism. An organization is defined by political boundaries and borders and can be described in concrete terms by an external body of conditions and characteristics. An organism, however, is only adequately defined by its own inner criteria. A foreign object can be within the "skin" of the organism and yet not united to it (and thus surrounded and either encysted or expelled) while at the same time the organism can reach out and encompass that which is outisde of itself and make it its own. The Church is an organism and she has obviously reached out and taken in St Isaac as one of her own despite whatever external political boundaries may have indicated otherwise.

Fr David Moser

John Charmley

14-04-2007, 11:25 AM

Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Peter,

Father, your historical method is an interesting one:

I prefer to argue in reverse from the normal historical order looking first to the vision and then finding what in the past corresponds to this or may have led to it.
It is what the Whigs, the Marxists and the Feminists said; I should hate to think that the Church needed to do it, and wish to suggest reasons why the sort of dichotomy you imply need not be so.

You ask

what if history with its peculiar presentation of what it takes to be reality, completely disagrees with the understanding of the Church?

to which my plain answer is that the history is bad history, or our understanding of it is vitiated by our desire to make it conform to what we know.

With the virus of postmodern relativism sweeping through the Academy like a computer virus over the past decades, it is not surprising that even Churchmen should reach for the 'another narrative as valid as others' approach; but the high tide of that disease is passed, as we have no need of such defensiveness. What we do have need of, and we lack, is of an historical methodology that works with the historic Faith; Patristics actually provides a paradigm here.

I should like to take your post on St. Isaac as a way into a possible paradigm.

What does the Church actually say about St. Isaac? Well, the answer would seem to be that whatever one or two individuals think, it says little about the 'Nestorianism' which exercises some folk here. Now, whilst it may be an interesting side-road to discover why some folk get defensive on this score, it is more relevant to a Christian historical method to note that in its wisdom the Church does not; do we know better than its historic mind?

Stage two would be to ask what the Church might mean; why has it not got hung up on this topic? The short answer is that it has found in its record of his teachings only Orthodoxy.

Your adjective, 'full-blooded' was one I have never seen applied to St. Isaac's Nestorianism; indeed, as we have it, the record is that he (sensibly) stayed away from all such controversies, seeing in them only a ferment that barred the way to salvation. In its attitude towards him, the Church finds this, embraces it - and him. In that there is a lesson for us all if we are humble enough to set aside our reading of what we think the Church must have said to fit in with what we wanted to be said.

Further thought leads us to the realisation that 'Nestorianism' is a label, originating from a polemical struggle, which conceals at least as much as it reveals. We have, of course, discussed this before on this forum. If we go to somewhere like the Pro-Oriente Foundation and engage with something like 'Is the Theology of the Church of the East Nestorian?' by Bishop Mar Bawai Soro & Cor-bishop M. J. Birnie, at http://www.cired.org/east/0103_is_theology.pdf, we can have an informed dialogue about these matters. It may question some of our own views of what 'the Church' says, but how often do we objectify our own views and project them on the Church - as an alternative to finding out the multiplicity of dialogues in which the Church is engaging?

Does this challenge our attempts to circumscribe the love of God? Does it pose that challenge to which I have referred, of the fact that we believe that salvation is only to be found in His Church, and yet He is everywhere when His Church is not? Does it ask questions about how His love could be circumscribed, and why? Do we not have answers? Good; we can start to think and pray.

There are some Faiths which are anti-history; they fear what the historical record might reveal and seek to remove themselves from its scrutiny by asserting, usually loudly, that they stand outside history. We are not, and cannot be, one of those. The Incarnation brought God directly into human history, it transformed that history. Our Orthodox Church stands on historical foundations; the Resurrection is an historical fact - it is the most important historical fact there ever will be; we have to deal with it - and therefore with history.

You write eloquently of a 'a resurrected noetic vision', but that needs to be seen in its various contexts. To say, as you do about 'history' that
we are not talking about reality at all even if supported by myriad 'facts of history' but mainly reflections of our distorted imagination
is more to describe the results of the method you adopt, than it is to describe the results of good historical method. How do we know we are not, as the atheists claim, worshipping 'reflections of our distorted imagination'? Because we know it because the Church tell us so; that makes us different from Islamic fundamentalists in what way exactly - except we know we are right because we know our Church is? Is that what we are saying in the end? I hope not. It is not what I believe, or why I believe.

Christianity is not a faith build upon a suspension of disbelief, or on an historical method that places the conclusion in a place where our argument was always leading. That there appears to be a dichotomy is the result of bad history. It is the result of our abandoning this vital tool to the secularists. It is an argument for Christian history, not just Church history.

Yes, St. Isaac was a Nestorian, yes the Church accepts him as a Saint because his teachings are Orthodox. So, go ask what that might mean, and what we, each of us, might learn from it. We do not need to suspend disbelief or park our intellects at the Church door; belief and intellect ought to work together - as they have done in the past, do now in some places, and need to in more in the future.

In the great age of Christendom we did not seek refuge from history, we saw in it God's work made manifest. Where is the modern Eusebius?

I hope not to have strayed too far from my ethnic 'niceness' in this, but if my plain-speaking offends, then in good English fashion, I am sorry; but as you have said before, sometimes there is more love in bluntness.

In the Risen Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-04-2007, 04:32 PM

Dear John,

There are quite a few points you make in your post. But for the sake of clarity I have gone to what I take to be one of your central points which is the following:

There are some Faiths which are anti-history; they fear what the historical record might reveal and seek to remove themselves from its scrutiny by asserting, usually loudly, that they stand outside history. We are not, and cannot be, one of those. The Incarnation brought God directly into human history, it transformed that history. Our Orthodox Church stands on historical foundations; the Resurrection is an historical fact - it is the most important historical fact there ever will be; we have to deal with it - and therefore with history.

First off I was talking about history as an academic discipline not about whether 'things happen' or whether the Church somehow denies this created aspect. For how could the Church deny this latter, ie the created and what occurs, since it so clearly refers to the Incarnation?

The Church however does not merely 'accept' what occurs. It redeems it and leads it to its final point of fulfillment in Christ. In this sense one of the purest historians of the Church if someone would want to put it this way is St Maximos the Confessor since everything is referred by him to its final point of fulfillment in Christ.

This however is not what I was mainly referring to. Rather I was referring to the discipline of history- mainly modern- which sees reality in a particular way which it takes to be the ultimate description of reality. As you probably know modern history is deeply invested in the project of secularism and its roots are in western humanism. To say it in ecclesiological terms history predefines reality by desacralizing it, by removing it from the very context St Maximus refers to.

This is what I want to say is very problematic for the Church since once again ecclesiological vision is not merely looking at things with religious glasses. Rather it is seeing with new eyes, not a different point of view. Can history as a discipline play a role in this? Yes- but only the sense that any human knowledge may lead to that spiritual and noetic vision which is the reality which the Church points to.

This is why I say that using history as a criterion for St Isaac is very problematic (note I don't say 'useless'). For much of the time it proceeds from what it finds on the human level, takes this as absolute reality and then imposes this on the Church; again as if the Church were a place of human knowledge.

But of all saints St Isaac is one of the clearest in saying that our human knowledge is either incomplete or a delusion. He categorically says that the Church refers to an entirely different kind of knowing and knowledge.

This is why I believe it is much better for us to move from vision to any so called facts we discover. Not as a methodology in and for itself. But rather in reference to the vision which is found in the icon, the lives of the saints and the Church's understanding. What in our research points to and sheds light on these I find helpful. What doesn't I do not trust no matter how great the claim to being historical.

To end this post with an example of what I specifically mean. Many nowadays assume from the 'historical evidence' that St Isaac must have been a Nestorian in the sense of what the Church condemned as a heresy (this is what I meant by 'full blooded Nestorian'). There are too many threads in this argument of inference to go into here (it has been used in some posts even in the past couple of days); some have already pointed out cogent reasons why even in its own historical light it is not as certain as might at first seem.

I think that it is precisely by proceeding in historical fashion that we continually end up in an impassible quagmire, caught between inference on the one hand (he was in a Nestorian church so he must have been Nestorian) and lack of any real evidence to this effect on the other (I have I think read everything translated into English of St Isaac including the Brookline version of his Ascetic Homilies which worked from the Syriac in consultation with Sebastian Brock. I have yet to find anything Nestorian in his writings.)

So I think it best to try to trust what the Church sets before us knowing from experience how many times human knowledge has betrayed us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: Only to clarify.

In my own mind at least 'niceness' or lack thereof is not something ethnic. Nor does bluntness equate with love.

Rather at some point we all need to examine a popular argument that implies that universal inclusiveness & tolerance is a form of love. What this argument frequently does is put pressure on others to accord with ones own point of view as the implication is that the other point of view is intolerant. The pressure point here is caused by the fact that while implying that ones point of view is the criterion of tolerance the methodology itself is intolerant. The other person feels this even if they cannot clearly put it into words.

The solution to this is not to be 'nice' but rather to humble oneself and listen to what others are saying. Yes this is very hard work for it involves abasing ourselves before that which we very much don't like to hear or encounter. But if we engage ourselves in this at least we shall have the prayers of others on our behalf since all of us in fact have this very same battle.

I hope not to have strayed too far from my ethnic 'niceness' in this, but if my plain-speaking offends, then in good English fashion, I am sorry; but as you have said before, sometimes there is more love in bluntness.

John Charmley

14-04-2007, 05:45 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Many thanks for your thoughtful response.

When you write

As you probably know modern history is deeply invested in the project of secularism and its roots are in western humanism you do so as though this were the whole of the story, which, of course, it is not. It might be helpful if you could elaborate on your statement that it
sees reality in a particular way which it takes to be the ultimate description of reality.

My own experience as an historian of more than thirty years at the chalk face is that history has many roots. There are certainly those committed to the Enlightenment project who, being that way, would read history backwards from their secularist conclusions; that was precisely the methodology which I was warning against; it produces plain bad history.

I can see that if one has this very narrow view of history, one might indeed wish to steer clear of it; but that would be to mistake the part for the whole and to concede the field to the enemy.

Bede wrote history, jolly good history as it happens, and although very western, he was no humanist; there is no necessary connection between the academic discipline of history and secularist view of the meaning of life - and we ought to be on our guard against those whose polemical purpose is to convince us of what is not the case.

There are examples in our own time which show the possible lineaments of a Christian historical sensibility. If one looks, for example, at the work of Professor McGurkin, his excellent study of St. Cyril, or his essay in the Palikan festschrift, Orthodoxy and Western Culture (SVS Press, 2005), or even Archbishop Rowan Williams' Why Study the Past? (DLT, 2005), one sees no reason to suppose that the temporary and partial triumph of secular history-writing need be other than just that.

Those types of history which pretend they are dealing in absolutes are usually bad history; historians know they deal with the accidental and the contingent; at their best they are aware that they see parts of the picture; there is no reason why the vision of the Church cannot aid their myopia, or why their skills cannot be devoted to that bigger cause. Note, I do not say historical knowledge is the only sort we have, but it is a useful tool for an historically-based Church to be using.

So, to take St. Isaac, Sebastian Brock, whose knowledge on this we must all bow to, thinks there are parts of St. Isaac's writings which are Nestorian, and that Orthodox copyists omitted them. I know Syriac speakers who have read the whole works in Syriac and say the same. To say that those of us who have read his edited works in English see nothing Nestorian in them simply says we cannot actually know the fulness of what we purport to be talking about. And yet it is not to deny the wisdom of the Church in accepting those of his writings which are Orthodox. Cannot we do both?

When you write

The pressure point here is caused by the fact that while implying that ones point of view is the criterion of tolerance the methodology itself is intolerant. The other person feels this even if they cannot clearly put it into words.
you open up another subject for debate. It is part of our fallen human state to feel that we are tolerant and that those who persist in not agreeing with us are not; indeed, how often do we go further and feel they are both wrong and intolerant? It often occurs to me that I am in the wrong, partly because even I can see it from time to time - which is why I try to be very tolerant of others; I never yet came across a discussion from which I failed to learn something. I should like to say I come away from such discussions wiser - but that is a great quality not to be confused with what I do come away being - which is better informed.

Again, my thanks for your elucidations and your company in this discussion.

In the Risen Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-04-2007, 04:45 AM

Dear John:

Again to get to a central point in what you have written:

Bede wrote history, jolly good history as it happens, and although very western, he was no humanist; there is no necessary connection between the academic discipline of history and secularist view of the meaning of life - and we ought to be on our guard against those whose polemical purpose is to convince us of what is not the case.

This is actually part of the very point I am trying to make. The Venerable Bede may have written 'jolly good history' but his is not the model one learns for reading or writing history in modern times. In western parts of the world Bede could be studied but he would not be the model for a paper one could hand in with hopes of passing or a book one could hope to get published as 'serious history'.

I know it is a common interpretation to see the venerable Bede as having been influenced by Eusebius and the Greek-Roman historians. But this in itself is a modern way of seeing Bede precisely outside of the context of what he actually wrote. For his history is fundamentally misunderstood if we do not see how for Bede the history of the place he lives begins and ends in Christ. In fact similar to how future Orthodox Christians in Russia will perceive their own history- there is no history before the people have become Christian because before Christianity they were barely human.

Now if we are saying that such views are accepted within the modern academic historical community and that they are part and parcel of modern history then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. For myself I have personally known students in universities who have been threatened with a failing grade for submitting far less radical a position than Bede's. I have also personally known a professor who eventually retired from their position as it became clear that they could not teach, not just Christ's truth (no one was so foolhardy as to attempt that), but simply the concept that truth is one (this person, an Orthodox Christian taught philosophy in a major university in Canada.)

Now when I am talking about St Isaac I don't deny that there could very well be respectful research in his regard. I'm not saying that history has nothing to say about St Isaac.

What I am saying however is that history like other academic and human forms of knowledge is not the way in which the Church knows who St Isaac is.

What do I mean? Here is St Isaac himself speaking about knowledge:

Spiritual wisdom causes silence to reign within the soul, but worldly wisdom produces a fountain of distraction.

When you have discovered spiritual wisdom, you will be filled with much humility and gentleness...

When, however, you have become possessed of the second wisdom, you will acquire a proud mind, unspeakably perverted thoughts, a disturbed intellect, shamelessness in the senses. (p 13- 14; Abba Isaac the Syrian; Archimandrite Vasileios).

In a long essay entitled The Theory of Knowledge of St Isaac the Syrian, Fr Justin Popovich expands on what St Isaac means by knowledge.

Fr Justin writes towards the beginning of his essay:

Where does the world stand? And where does man? What is the foundation of the intellect and of knowledge? Man tries to explain himself in terms of things, but with total lack of success, for by explaining himself in terms of things, man in the end is reduced to a thing himself, to matter.

Here Fr Justin has actually used a common Patristic understanding of knowledge which is that man actually acquires a different kind of knowledge as his life is deified in Christ. This is not to say that human knowledge is of no use. But it has been profoundly touched by the Fall so that it only faintly perceives truth as compared to noetic understanding.

This latter is exactly what St Isaac constantly urges us on towards through our life in Christ. But especially through humbly dying to ourselves through an ascetic life. As St Isaac says most clearly, let no man dare to strive for the resurrection before he has struggled with his crucifixion to this world and his passions. Indeed it is only through this way that man begins to learn what it means to love, for love is not only a way of acting. More profoundly love is the way the deified man sees the world.

Thus the only real knowledge we have is through this way which St Isaac describes. On the contrary however as Fr Justin further explains from St Isaac:

Rationalism considers the understanding to be an infallible organ of knowledge. Therefore, in relationship with the whole person, it appears as an anarchic apostate. It is like a branch that has cut itself off from the vine, which can have no full life or creative reality on its own. It is in no state to come to a knowledge of the truth, for in its egocentric isolation it is divided, scattered, and full of gaps. Truth, by contrast, is given to an intellect that has been purified, enlightened, transfigured and deified by the action of the virtues.

Note that what is said here is not that the rational knowledge of passionate men is unstable. No- this is something far more radical, but yet fundamental to what we mean by knowledge in the Church. ie that human knowledge itself, with all of its disciplines and study is unstable by nature. Again- not evil, not useless; but unstable, unsure, prone to profound misinterpretaions & being the plaything of the passions. And this warning is most serious as due to our falleness we commonly take this knowledge as absolute.

Now this explanation of knowledge by St Isaac and others is to me the exact example of how the Church has come to know who St Isaac really is. Can this knowledge of the Church contradict what the world knows? Following from the above it is only natural to expect there to be a contradiction between how the world knows the saints and how the Church does.

Thus the world 'discovers' that all along St Isaac is a Nestorian but with no evidence it can show in the more than 20 years that translations into English have appeared. Isn't there one sentence that one of these worthies could take the time to translate into English so as to demolish our faith in this saint? With all of the gnostic gospels & tombs of Christ one would have thought such an endeavour to be well within grasp. But such proof which someone apparently has read is still not presented to us.

What then of the articles written from within the Church to show the Persian church was rarely Nestorian in the heretical sense we mean it. But still this is not good enough for the world. Why then this unstoppable urge to show St Isaac is a heretic?

It certainly is unlikely that the world has suddenly become concerned that the Church be more fervent in defending itself from heretics. More likely it is part of an effort to show that our concern about heresy is misplaced, a mistaken endeavour of fanaticism which constantly misses the mark.

But only partly, for the evil one sees his true enemy is the understanding or even hope that there is a different kind of knowledge from this world. He admits love- but not a different kind of love above this world. He admits knowledge- but not a different kind of knowledge above this world. In fact he has a whole list of things he's more than willing for us to accept.

But basically it all boils down to accepting that there's really only this world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

15-04-2007, 09:52 AM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Again, we are in your debt for an illuminating post; nor do I think the distance between us is a great one, at least in some areas.

My own reflections in this vein started with a lament that there was now, so often, a division between academic history and the faith, so I am unlikely to dissent from your renewed statement that there is; of course, it would have been odd of me to have called for a rapprochement had there not been an estrangement. I am sad that in Canada it is not possible to do what it is in my classes, which is to use Bede as a model.

There is no disagreement either over the three stages of knowledge. You keep asserting something that has not been argued by me, namely that history deals in absolutes; decent history does not, and I never yet met a good historian who did not recognise that what we know is no more than the part of iceberg above water.

On the St. Isaac front you provide your own synthesis, which gets most of the way there, whilst showing how inherent human biases can make the journey more troublesome than is necessary. When you ask why Syriac scholars do not use Nestorian passages from the saint to demolish our faith, I simply wonder why they would want to? History is not polemic, and scholars should refrain from engagement with the polemic of those who wish to throw mud.

When you say that the Church takes the view that the evidence might
show the Persian church was rarely Nestorian in the heretical sense we mean it it made me smile. No one asked anyone in the EO Church to stick labels on the Church of the East; but if one is unsticking it for this one case, perhaps one might wonder about the wider application of that same label; indeed, perhaps one might be led to ask serious questions about such labels in general. Here a little knowledge of what others say about themselves - and, dare I say it, their history, might come in useful?

Good history recognises its many limitations - which certainly include its limitation to the two dimensions of time and space - but since the Incarnation occurred within those boundaries, history was once a handmaid of the Church, and could be so again. We should not let the Evil One remain in occupation of ground that was once ours - and can be again.

It would appear doubtful that a consensus will be reached, since different readings, indeed in some instances multiple ones, are possible here; but it is an interesting discussion, and I hope will not bore others.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-04-2007, 03:43 PM

Dear John,

You wrote:

There is no disagreement either over the three stages of knowledge. You keep asserting something that has not been argued by me, namely that history deals in absolutes; decent history does not, and I never yet met a good historian who did not recognise that what we know is no more than the part of iceberg above water.

Here I think we must disagree. Of course history does not deal in absolutes in the sense that it admits of multiple points of view. The whole point of trying to discover the correct context in order to provide the best possible historical explanation also I suppose shows something similar.

But this is not what I mean. The Church actually takes the three stages of knowledge as pointing to the only possibility of true knowledge on the one hand and a warning of where false knowledge lies on the other.

What do I mean? If history says, "Napoleon lived during such and such years", how can this be false knowledge? Also if we take this a step further and begin to interpret the actions of Napoleon during those years (which is the primary task of history), why be so extreme as to call this false knowledge?

First off the Church will often use strong language to describe a crucial point without meaning this in a totally exhaustive sense. Thus to call something 'false' does not mean irredeemably evil but rather, not complete, unstable and subject to men's passion. In other words historical knowledge as an autonomous human discipline is not complete knowledge.

Of course you make the point that history acknowledges this already. But this is more a kind of agnosticism than a recognition that human knowledge as compared to Divine is always lacking. Divine knowledge also for us is also never complete- we go from glory to glory- but we don't mean this in an agnostic sense that since we don't really know then all truth is relative.

Incomplete knowledge as taught by the Church and relativism as taught by the world are two different kinds of knowledge in fact and here is where I would day that history as we know it is clearly in the latter world. Again not at all that it is of no help. But i do believe it's help is limited compared to the portrait of an icon or lives of saints or oral tradition about a saint.

Here I think is where we get to the heart of what I am trying to convey. If we are saying that icons, lives of saints and oral tradition are the same as modern history then I think we have confused matters. We aren't recognizing the fundamental difference between these two ways of knowledge, one of which is of this world (note this doesn't mean it is evil or of no help at all), while the other is ecclesiological.

An example of this I thought of last night after 'signing off' is represented by one of St Isaac's statements that, "mercy is opposed to just judgement."
Such statements of St Isaac are usually taken as representing his most central point concerning the nature of God and how we can best become as He is. It also points to a way of life, of vision and of knowledge.

History however, at least what I have read through my own lifetime, is based on 'just judgement' or human assessment. One can put forward mitigating circumstances to explain an event historically but not true mercy as we mean it.

Thus an example I have recently come across in a couple of books- one from without the Church, the other within (this way of seeing is also much found within the Church nowadays) that St Gregory the Theologian is bad tempered. In the last example at least the compiler had a text from St Gregory so as to see for yourself his 'bad temper'. After reading this text a number of times however I still was unable to see any bad temper- more an irony in reply to St Basil's exaltation of his ascetic hideaway.

Now such things are common for those with the historical eyes to see. They must see the truth wherever it lies and reveal it to all. However apart from the obvious point of misinterpretation of what one is examining which is very common to historical knowledge is the fact that within the Church we are instructed to cover the sins of our fathers. Well if so, what of the saints? Why would anyone ever proceed on the principle that seeing the truth involves uncovering the weaknesses of their spiritual elders? What happened to the clear teaching of the Church that such truth is delusion? But yet secular history is filled with such revelations and often bases its whole argument on it.
So there is I believe always a kind of false knowledge in history or any kind of secular knowledge amidst the claims of objectivity.

A last word here. I most certainly do not believe that modern Syriac scholars are covering St Isaac with mercy. If they have not printed the 'incriminating evidence' that St Isaac is a Nestorian, then it's because they are unsure of their evidence. These translations have seen the light of day for at least 20 years now. Syriac scholars aren't a guild sworn to an oath of honour. If the definitive evidence existed in reality an article about it would have appeared by now.

Unless God is protecting us by having the printing presses of these scholars break down at the last minute or their manuscripts mysteriously disappearing. :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

15-04-2007, 06:15 PM

Dear John, Father Raphael and others,

There have been several heady posts in this thread over the past days, which I've only found myself able to approach with any time today. Some interesting food for thought. I must say that on first careful reading through all the above, I'm not sure I either agree or disagree with the two approaches to history that have been outlined (not least in part because they are involved, and it will take some time to absorb them!); but I've certainly learned a great deal from reading the exchange.

As to the particular question of St Isaac, whatever the view of history one takes, the concern that often drives the question has less to do with history per se than it does with nascent concerns over the ecclesiological questions that might arise if one were forced to admit, by whatever historical revelation in whatever form, that Isaac was a Nestorian. To simplify the concern many people have: If Isaac is Nestorian.... what then? The real issues that lie behind the fascination are less about the vagueries of the man's life, as they are about borders of the Church, questions of sanctity within and without, and the like. (These questions are, I think, what Father David was trying to get at in his post above (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44153&postcount=62).)

Two 'easy ways out' are popular, if one surveys the (surprisingly vast amount of) literature, cogent and otherwise, that occupies itself with such questions. The first is to insist on a kind of history that insists St Isaac was not a Nestorian in any real sense. The second is to de-historicise the question; to say 'history is not relevant', and to somehow disassociate St Isaac's thought from his life. (To be clear for the point of conversation, I am not suggesting either of these as the approaches given in the above; these are simply the standards.) In either case, the tendency is again not a real concern over what 'history' actually means, but in the end result: in the real fear, had by many, that a positive answer to 'Was Isaac a Nestorian?' automatically vitiates against him truly being a saint, and thus forging a reading of Isaac, his life and influence, that preserves one against a feared result.

In the end, the ecclesiological question of sanctity and the Church is the one that really consumes people, and one often hidden away behind other issues. At one direct level, it is clear that St Isaac lived and died in communion with an ecclesial body that was not in communion with the Church - and yet that same Church has given him, and maintains for him, the title 'Saint'. I take Father Raphael's point, in some of its aspects, to be that the Church clearly has a different vision of 'qualification' for 'in' or 'out' than many people would choose to foster by simple question-and-answer checklists (e.g. 'did you do this, did you live there, did you say that...'); and that the study of history as first and foremost as the realm of transfigured vision of the human economy must likewise not be bound into a check-listing of data and categories as the foundations of reality. But I take John's point also, that the study history in academic, social settings isn't rightly about such check-listing in any case; that this is distorted, or more plainly bad, history. But I don't think that in the exchange of this thread there's yet been a presentation of 'history' that fully embraces the task as ascetical transfiguration of observation and engagement, in a manner that wholly accounts for the way the Church approaches certain events and figures -- St Isaac being a clear example.

Many people become deeply worried, perhaps afraid, when they encounter the reality of the Church's ascetical approach to its members, bound up in certain episodes or facts that jar with black-and-white categorisations: for example the fact that Origen, a man many are happy simply to call 'heretic, end of story', was in fact the singular most influential theologian on most of the great saints of the fourth century; that Arius was in fact rehabilitated to the Church, yet still called heretic; that Isaac might be outside the clear bounds of ecclesiological jurisdiction, yet still called 'saint'; etc. Each of these can be explained away by approaching the story from a certain slant; but the real testimony of the Church is that truth works in a different category than simply analysis of data.

INXC, Matthew

John Charmley

15-04-2007, 08:05 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Matthew,

My thanks to you both for your engagement thus far, and shards of light can be discerned.

There is an Augustinian slant to your view of history Father, which was what, I suspect, had me puzzled, as I had not expected to encounter it from such a source; but I guess it is so ingrained in the western mindset that it is considered normative.

Augustine turned the assumptions of Eusebius on their head. Where the latter was concerned to show how the pattern of God's actions as described in the Scriptures can be discerned in the history of the Church, with the same ending - namely the reward going to those who kept the Faith despite all the pressures not to do so, Augustine divorces human history from the history of the Christians; there will be, for him, no happy ending in human history; the Church, as the body of God's people, continues its journey through this earthly city, with its eyes firmly fixed on the heavenly one; what happens in human history is not important eternally, therefore it has far less relevance than our journey to God.

That is certainly one way of reading history, and it seems to have things in common with your own; the true end of history lies in the lives of the holy people in whom God exercises His power. I do not, as I have written before, disagree that this is one way of reading history, but as a way of writing it it tends to leave the field open to the Enemy.

The Orthodox Church places emphasis upon the mind of the Church, and as Matthew has reminded us (if history did not) it can take a long time for that mind to be clearly spoken; we can still tremble when we see how close the Arians came to success. How do we know what is Orthodox? The Church teaches us; it teaches us out of a reading of its own history, in which it (and we) discern the work of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that some historians are simply agnostic when they acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge; but that is too reductionist a reading to be entirely persuasive, I suspect.

If, as we do, we believe that all Christians, past and present (and to come) are members one of the Body of Christ, then we need a Christian history to find what nourishes us and links us in that communion. This is the challenge that would face a Christian history; to say we don't have it is true; to say we cannot have it, to my mind, defeatist; and to say we don't need it is to leave the writing of our own history to those who are at best indifferent to Christian Truth. The results of that method of proceeding we see all too well in the bookshops.

Yet the Church has had a longer record of engagement with history than any mere earthly organisation. Part of the origin of Patristics lies in the need of the Church to be able to identify heresy by defining Orthodoxy through the clear line of succession from the Apostles. We read the Old Testament as the history of God's dealings with His people, and, as Christians, we see the fulfilment of those dealings in the Risen Lord. Eusebius, in contrast to Augustine, was seeking to show that history was the record of the consistency of God's dealing with us, and of His love for us, and of our need to stand faithful to a recognised standard of Orthodoxy, defined by the Church through its reading of history.

Although we can hardly sustain a reading as simply optimistic as that of Eusebius, we could do that with wonder at His capacity to sustain and maintain His work in His world. This would be a complex enterprise, as it would involve showing how, in the apparent failure of human endeavours, we have to be at one with the Crucified Christ; and live in the hope He brings us. A history, if you like, in the shadow of the Cross. To quote Archbishop Rowan Williams:
this ... helps us see why for a Christian the writing of history is bound to be theological in some ways. It is not that considerations of doctrine decide the results of research; God forbid. But the possibility of telling a consistent or coherent story about how God's people have lived is, inescapably for the believer, the possibility of seeing two fundamental theological points. God's self-consistency is to be relied on (i.e. God is not at the mercy of historical chance and change); and thus relation to God can be the foundation of a human community unrestricted by time or space, by language or cultural difference [Why Study the Past?]p. 10

Now that seems, to me, an enterprise which, whilst it must always fall short of noetic knowledge, nonetheless serves a purpose in this world which is worthy of considerable thought. When Dr. Williams writes that
good theology does not come from bad history [Op. cit. p. 2] he touches on why this is a matter of real concern. Without getting into specifics, it might well be argued that much of what the Church considers bad theology comes from bad history.

When you write
I most certainly do not believe that modern Syriac scholars are covering St Isaac with mercy. If they have not printed the 'incriminating evidence' that St Isaac is a Nestorian, then it's because they are unsure of their evidence. These translations have seen the light of day for at least 20 years now. Syriac scholars aren't a guild sworn to an oath of honour. If the definitive evidence existed in reality an article about it would have appeared by now that is a statement of what you believe, with some interesting a priori assumptions drawn from it; it is not, however an historical argument. I make no assumptions myself about what Syriac scholars have or have not written about St. Isaac, not least because I am unfamiliar with the detailed scholarship in that are.

However, as Matthew rather implies, it would actually make no difference if Syriac scholars 'proved' (whatever that might mean) that St. Isaac was blood-brother to Nestorius (as full-blooded as I could think of); the mind of the Church has found its record of his teachings Orthodox. God's love is not thus circumscribed.

A history that could accommodate that wisdom, that paradox, and the awesome questions that go along with it, and show how we, as God's people, across time, space and culture relate one to the other on our journey through this world from glory unto glory, would, I submit, be worth having.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-04-2007, 11:49 PM

Dear Matthew,

When you write:

As to the particular question of St Isaac, whatever the view of history one takes, the concern that often drives the question has less to do with history per se than it does with nascent concerns over the ecclesiological questions that might arise if one were forced to admit, by whatever historical revelation in whatever form, that Isaac was a Nestorian. To simplify the concern many people have: If Isaac is Nestorian.... what then? The real issues that lie behind the fascination are less about the vagueries of the man's life, as they are about borders of the Church, questions of sanctity within and without, and the like. (These questions are, I think, what Father David was trying to get at in his post above (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44153&postcount=62).)

My concern is more that history already seems to have debunked everything involving our Faith. This is why, for myself at least, the question is not, "if one were forced to admit, by whatever historical revelation in whatever form, that Isaac was a Nestorian. To simplify the concern many people have: If Isaac is Nestorian.... what then?" Rather the question, at least for myself, is what is it about modern history that drives it to such an approach to the truth in the first place.

Of course as John rightly points out such questioning is not the entire story of history. My point however is not about this but rather what we are to make of a discipline which contradicts itself on most every level? And how or why would we as Orthodox Christians ever take this as a criterion for determining the truth about the Faith?

This is why I believe that the answer to this question lies in what modern history means by truth & that it's understanding of truth is not that of the Church.

I understand this is a sensitive question. Generally speaking I have a bias in favour of history. But after studying and reading it for well on 30 years it plays at most a role of interest in my Orthodox life like listening to music. It's certainly not spiritually supportive.

Many people become deeply worried, perhaps afraid, when they encounter the reality of the Church's ascetical approach to its members, bound up in certain episodes or facts that jar with black-and-white categorisations: for example the fact that Origen, a man many are happy simply to call 'heretic, end of story', was in fact the singular most influential theologian on most of the great saints of the fourth century; that Arius was in fact rehabilitated to the Church, yet still called heretic; that Isaac might be outside the clear bounds of ecclesiological jurisdiction, yet still called 'saint'; etc. Each of these can be explained away by approaching the story from a certain slant; but the real testimony of the Church is that truth works in a different category than simply analysis of data.

INXC, Matthew

I take the points you make that, "the real testimony of the Church is that truth works in a different category than simply analysis of data." I also think that this is extremely important in coming to a fuller understanding of the Church.

But the obvious difference is that St Isaac is considered a saint of the Church while Origen is not. Origen was condemned and the consensus these many centuries later is still supportive of this condemnation within the Church.

Perhaps it would be interesting to examine the process at work which can condemn someone so well known and even revered as Origen was while accepting St Isaac who would hardly have been known in his lifetime west of Persia and was from a church we weren't (or were barely at least) in communion with.

I think it best about those like Origen, to first accept that they have been condemned by the Church. I think we need to see that it is to be expected and proper that most within the Church will take such condemnations at face value. For many people the alternative looks like losing sight of the forest for the sake of studying the trees.

For those given to studying the trees however I think this requires slow and patient work to present what is positive. All of this takes place within the Church which relates to our own personal views in very mysterious ways. Who knows, as long as this doesn't imply that others are limited for accepting the condemnations of the Church, there could really be quite a bit others could learn about Origen that is positive. I for one have absolutely nothing against this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

16-04-2007, 12:53 AM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

When you write

This is why I believe that the answer to this question lies in what modern history means by truth & that it's understanding of truth is not that of the Church.
my response would be that whilst the dichotomy you describe exists, it is not a necessary condition; indeed, it is there at least in part because Christians have abandoned the field to those with a secularist agenda; you touch, in fact, on the reason for my initial plea for a Christian history.

The Church and history are bound up together, not least because the mind of the Church is expressed over time, and not at one point by one magisterium; if it is, as we believe, the mystical body of Christ which links all Christians, then from it we can learn much about what it means to be Christian; much, not everything, and not the most important things. But if we leave it to those who see it as a tool for secular debunking, we are hardly in a position to complain convincingly when academic historians use it against the Church.

So, when you write
I think it best about those like Origen, to first accept that they have been condemned by the Church. would it perhaps be more accurate (and helpful towards a better theological understanding) to say that some of his teachings were condemned? That is not to quibble; it is an example of how history can help us here. When some folk ask in surprise why Origen can be considered so important when he was a heretic, we can answer in a more nuanced way, explaining where the Church thinks he erred, and why; but equally explaining that not all he taught comes under condemnation.

What is it about history that makes it ask whether St. Isaac was a Nestorian? A simple search for truth as far as it can be had. Not the whole of the truth, for without the dimensions I mentioned in my last posting here one hardly gets to first base. Indeed, if the implications of what was written above are followed, we get both a better history and a better theology. One possible reading would go thus (and I stress it is one of a number of possible readings).

St. Isaac belonged to a Church which was, to say the least, not in full Communion with the Church. We could take one of the two approaches which Matthew so helpfully delineates - denial or repudiation. Neither will satisfy anyone who has not already reached one of those positions, and neither actually helps us understand what lessons may be there for us. An alternative would be that the decision of the Church to regard him as a Saint - which is not in question - tells us that its criteria are the standard by which we judge this matter. Does that present us with a seeming paradox? Did Our Lord not often proceed in like manner when He wished to spark our dull senses into understanding. How, they asked, could a man be born again when he was a man?

Perhaps, in place of polemic and dichotomy, there is an invitation here to construct a history which asks such questions and seeks to place them in the shadow of the Cross; to seek to find within the seeming paradox the meanings placed there for us to meditate upon. It is an invitation to an uncomfortable place, where our complacencies are shaken, our pride humbled, and our need for a reading that asks about the boundaries of the Church and the limits of His love, push us into places we had rather not go.

Other readings are possible, but any that refuse to explore the dimensions of the paradox of a 'Nestorian' Orthodox saint by seeking refuge in either denial or repudiation of the uses of history, will fall short of what could be done within the paradigm of a Christian history.

When I started off down this track, it was in pursuit of the question of whether it was possible to have a Christian history. The question came because my concerns about history as it is so often practised are those which you have phrased so eloquently. In the course of our discussion I have tried to trace what might be the lineaments and uses of such a history; one that would not seek to assert its primacy, but rather to help in the journey towards that greater knowledge where words are not necessary. I am not sure that what has been sketched is an outline basis for a Christian history; but the more the discussion proceeds, the more convinced do I become that one is necessary if we are not to leave this field to the enemy who now occupies so much of it.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

16-04-2007, 03:48 PM

Dear all,

If nothing else, some of what has been discussed above shows up the need for the Church today to come to grips with what history means in Christ - i.e. what is authentic theological history. And this is a need not because modern historical method needs reacting to or against, but because we in the Church have been too lazy, over the past 150 or so years, to continue to articulate authentic historical vision in the face of changing trends in secular versions, to the point that we are now in a place where 'history' sounds to some almost anathema to Christian truth - a thing that would have horrified beyond words, I am utterly convinced, the fathers of the Church.

As long as we proclaim a creation and an incarnation, we proclaim a story, an economy, a history. We speak of the faith 'of our fathers' or proclaim the truth of 'the God of Abaraham, of Isaac, of Jacob'; a Christ who 'when the time had come' took flesh. The councils look backward to what has gone before; the fathers inherit and articulate the mystery experienced in ascetical encounter.

This is our history, and we must re-learn how to understand it.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-04-2007, 04:00 PM

Dear John,

You wrote:

When I started off down this track, it was in pursuit of the question of whether it was possible to have a Christian history. The question came because my concerns about history as it is so often practised are those which you have phrased so eloquently. In the course of our discussion I have tried to trace what might be the lineaments and uses of such a history; one that would not seek to assert its primacy, but rather to help in the journey towards that greater knowledge where words are not necessary. I am not sure that what has been sketched is an outline basis for a Christian history; but the more the discussion proceeds, the more convinced do I become that one is necessary if we are not to leave this field to the enemy who now occupies so much of it.

This is interesting because by last night this is the question I was also wondering about. Actually, I like the direction you describe in the words,

In the course of our discussion I have tried to trace what might be the lineaments and uses of such a history; one that would not seek to assert its primacy, but rather to help in the journey towards that greater knowledge where words are not necessary.

In the sense that the Church has a history one can only agree- the Church has a past, present and future.

But in the sense of history as the discipline taught and expressed in our schools & the history one comes across in most books of history I think it confuses matters to try to give history such a primary role in the life of the Church. In effect, at least as far as I can see it, this is like saying listening to classical music has an important part in the life of the Church: and this is because classical music can become Church music. Well, not unless the classical music loses its shape to such an extent it no longer is classical music anymore.

So why not just say these things are of interest, perhaps helpful in their own way at times? But not equivalent to the expression and knowledge of the Church.

This is why when it comes to:

What is it about history that makes it ask whether St. Isaac was a Nestorian? A simple search for truth as far as it can be had. Not the whole of the truth, for without the dimensions I mentioned in my last posting here one hardly gets to first base. Indeed, if the implications of what was written above are followed, we get both a better history and a better theology. One possible reading would go thus (and I stress it is one of a number of possible readings).

What I am trying to say is that many do not ask themselves this question and do just fine with St Isaac as they read him. And what I am trying to ask is what is it about modern history which on the contrary assumes that unless you ask this question, in fact, you do not fully understand St Isaac? What is it in other words about modern history as a discipline that is so tied in with criticism as a means of discovering truth? Or even, if one wants to sweeten the medicine, that believes that critical investigation is necessary for discovering the truth?

Here, in terms of the question I am trying to ask I don't think it is at all helpful to point to how history can be redeemed. For again, that is not my main point.
Rather what I am driving at is the principles of knowledge which modern history relies on & how or whether an Orthodox Christian should rely on these for his/her life in Christ.

further below:

St. Isaac belonged to a Church which was, to say the least, not in full Communion with the Church. We could take one of the two approaches which Matthew so helpfully delineates - denial or repudiation. Neither will satisfy anyone who has not already reached one of those positions, and neither actually helps us understand what lessons may be there for us. An alternative would be that the decision of the Church to regard him as a Saint - which is not in question - tells us that its criteria are the standard by which we judge this matter. Does that present us with a seeming paradox? Did Our Lord not often proceed in like manner when He wished to spark our dull senses into understanding. How, they asked, could a man be born again when he was a man?

Perhaps, in place of polemic and dichotomy, there is an invitation here to construct a history which asks such questions and seeks to place them in the shadow of the Cross; to seek to find within the seeming paradox the meanings placed there for us to meditate upon. It is an invitation to an uncomfortable place, where our complacencies are shaken, our pride humbled, and our need for a reading that asks about the boundaries of the Church and the limits of His love, push us into places we had rather not go.

Other readings are possible, but any that refuse to explore the dimensions of the paradox of a 'Nestorian' Orthodox saint by seeking refuge in either denial or repudiation of the uses of history, will fall short of what could be done within the paradigm of a Christian history.

Perhaps by now it can be seen that I am not at all arguing against the fact that the Church lives within created time. In this sense the Church does have a history. But this history is different from that which modern history describes because modern history proceeds on a different principles of knowledge. What modern history sees as 'the facts' which must be critically handled in order to discover the truth we see as living things within the context of Christ. This modern tendency which we find in history relies on abstracting reality (ie presenting to oneself a mental image of reality) which it takes as a certain way of discovering the truth. It is not noetic knowing. So in terms of an Orthodox understanding of knowledge it is not simply a question of history using a secondary kind of knowledge (which I admit in the past before modern times it has used). Rather modern history also relies on a fallen kind of knowledge to discern the truth.

Thus what I am trying to point to is not at all to:

refuse to explore the dimensions of the paradox of a 'Nestorian' Orthodox saint by seeking refuge in either denial or repudiation of the uses of history

Rather I am saying that for the Church, history is the way in which the person is put into the context of Christ. As such we begin first with the vision which the Church presents us in the icon or lives of the saints or oral tradition. And this precisely is because this is the Church's history.

In this vision is there really a Nestorian heretic that could one day come out of the shadows? In a sense I take to heart Matthew's words that we shouldn't allow ourselves to get to the point that our ideas about the Church's vision preclude all the rough edges. I also believe this point to be very important.

But I honestly believe that if we see the saint within the vision of the Church we will never find a saint to be a heretic no matter what 'facts' come our way.

I wanted to end here but there is a last point which I think extremely important in this discussion. I am having trouble however putting it clearly into thought or words. But let me begin by putting it negatively.

The Church's vision of a person is not just from a moment in time as is modern history's. We can say and think all sorts of things at any given point in the past on which history would give a verdict for. But the Church does not see us in this way.

A person is part of a larger context within Christ that originates from and moves towards Him. For the Church this is the most accurate story of each person- their history.

So yes there have been times of glaring weakness in a person's life. But within the Church's vision this is no longer an accurate depiction of a person.

In a way, but without wishing to dwell on the question of weakness too much, I think this best explains why St Isaac was accepted as a saint.

Saint Isaac lives so much in the redeemed time and noetic realm. Much more than with even many other saints, St Isaac already anticipates the Church's vision of each person. Somehow there is already so much light within his words that our minds don't trip up so easily on the contradictions of history in his regard.

And connected with this is that it has always been largely within monasticism that this particular kind of vision of him has been found.

In other words I honestly don't think we will ever understand how St Isaac was accepted as a saint if we do not take into account how monastics see history.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

16-04-2007, 04:07 PM

Dear Matthew

I agree very, very much. We must not set history against truth, indeed the Fathers seem immersed in a Christian historical view of the world around them, and this seems to me to be also found in the Old Testament prophetic tradition.

The Gospels do not begin 'Once upon a time...', and they are not a form of religious myth, unattached to history, but the Gospels begin 'And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.'

Our message is rooted in history, it occurs in history, it unfolds in history, it can only be properly understood within the discipline of a Christian history, which supports and does not oppose a proper Christian theology. There is much more that we could learn, and need to learn, from a Christian history, because the Orthodox Christian Faith is not always coterminous with my, or our, assumptions and prejudices. The Church has nothing to fear from Christian history, even if we, as people who are still in the process of being transformed by grace, sometimes feel that the pressure to change our minds in regard to something we believe sincerly is the same as an attack on the Church and the Christian faith.

Thanks again for an encouraging post. I had begun to fear that Eastern Orthodoxy was indeed afraid of history. It is, after all, properly written, both prophetic and pastoral, a warning and a comfort. And we need to hear both messages from a Christian history, otherwise we comfort ourselves when we should be convicted of sin, and give way to despair when we should be strengthened in spirit by the recollection of what God has already done.

Peter

M.C. Steenberg

16-04-2007, 04:51 PM

Dear Peter and others,

I think my comments in my last post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44244&postcount=73) need to be read along side those of my earlier note (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44209&postcount=69). I would not, for example, immediately agree with the statement 'The Church has nothing to fear from Christian history', not least because what I am suggesting is precisely that separating 'Church' and 'Christian history' is (by definition) a uniquely secular project. True, the Church need fear nothing here, but that ought to be true of the Church's approach to anything outside its realms - whether secular history, or art, or music, or any other realm. Take what is good, leave what is not, not simply rejecting wholesale anything.

But this is not the realm on which I was commenting. From a patristic mindset, Christian history is history in the Church. While it need not fear, and may even benefit in some (or many) ways from secular historical methods, it is not identical with the secular historical project. Christian history is the theological vision of the created economy wrought through the experience of union with Christ. To separate the realms is not to demean the one (i.e. 'secular' is not a synonym for 'bad'), or necessarily set them at odds one with the other, but to acknowledge that history as ascetical approach to Christological vision is not and cannot be seen as the same project as history approached from another mode.

I believe this is some of what Father Raphael has been trying to get at in some of his recent posts. I do not agree with all that Fr Raphael has written (and he and I have been posting together in this community long enough for me to be sure that I will know I mean not the slightest disrespect in this); but I do take as extremely important the undercurrent of different history.

Christian history starts and ends in Christ. This alone makes it unique, and incomparable to a method that begins differently. This is not to say - as a simplistic explanation might have it - that it is therefore history that draws its conclusions first and then struggles to make everything fit with them; rather, it is history read from the encounter with the one who is its beginning and end - history always unfolding and developing, yet at every moment fulfilled.

What we need is not to say, 'History is irrelevant', but neither to say 'History is everything'. What we need is to reclaim a patristic understanding of authentically theological history.

I had begun to fear that Eastern Orthodoxy was indeed afraid of history.

This seems bizarre and rashly judgemental.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

16-04-2007, 05:03 PM

Dear Matthew

I had begun to fear that Eastern Orthodoxy was indeed afraid of history.

This seems bizarre and rashly judgemental.

I am not sure why, since it seemed to be the only reasonable response to some posts in this thread which have said that history is not spiritually supportive. If not supportive then surely damaging?

I agree entirely with you latest post, but in fact I never suggested that Christian history was something separate to the Church, and that was why I used the term Christian history, and suggested that Christian history done in and by the Church could never harm the Church.

History may not be everything (although you would need to define what you mean by history and everything) but the Church is always historical. If we set ourselves adrift from history then we are less the Church.

Peter

John Charmley

16-04-2007, 05:15 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Matthew,

First let me say how grateful I am to you both for your engagement in what is proving to be an illuminating series of posts; I do hope others will feel likewise.

Matthew does, indeed, see the direction from which I am attempting to come. Whether we like it or no, the Church is located within a history which is written and will be written; if we leave it to others we know what the results are.

We must beware of getting to any position which looks as though we are saying that we can ignore the past when it does not suit what we believe; that would be to close ourselves down intellectually. It would mean that our view of what the 'mind of the Church' is, could never be challenged because we believe only what we have been taught and ignore any criticism. That is the sort of mindset which has led to schism in the past; its resemblance to the mindset of a cult would worry me. I am not saying that that is what is being said here, simply that we ought to avoid even giving that impression; I hope we have.

If we are members all of the one body, we are a community of believers linked across time and space; our identity is bound up in that community; to understand ourselves properly, we need to understand more about that community - which has existed in this space across time, even as it extends into the next world which is timeless. As we advance from glory unto glory, we will reach that world; but in this one it will help that journey to be able to scope a history of the people of God across their time and spaces - and to do it in the shadow of the Cross.

One of the few advantages we have over Eusebius in this respect is that we can see even more than he could (given his optimism about his own times) that human history is best explained in the shadow of the Cross; His suffering is a pattern for comprehending our own; and only in Him will the fulness of that lesson be revealed. But here and now, across times and space, it unites us with those who have gone before, and those who are here now, but not in our space. We engage in the Eucharistic and prayer lives, we receive His Grace, we perform our works; we live out our Christian lives, as well as live within them; we have the second stage of knowledge as we strive for the third. Is there no history of these things that can be written? There certainly is not one; but would it not profit us as Christians to have access to what is our history?

That is not to argue for something as simple (but still wanting) as a history of Christianity as the endeavour of the Christian spirit in the people of God; it is to suggest the need for a reading of history which allows for us to witness what can be known of His work in His agents in a past which is part of a continuum with His future. That would have to involve knowing how the mind of the Church works - indeed, it would in part be a history of that mind.

It would challenge some of the core assumptions in academic historical teaching - which is a good thing. Any simple progressivist or positivist mythology would have to be dismantled in questioning the notion that we know more than previous generations did. Palpably that is not so with the workings of the spirit in this world; we are not wiser than St. Cyril, nor St. John Chrysostom; we may be better informed on some matters, but far less wise. Against such insights a progressive version of history collapses in on itself, to be replaced by one which has us in our proper place - inheritors of the wisdom of the Fathers; humble servants seeking guidance; recorders, in part, of the human encounter with God through the Incarnate Word.

As I suggest, such an enterprise would mean direct engagement with the prevailing assumptions of much historical writing; but why not? Our community extends across time and space; we are not the first to walk this way, nor will we be the last. The questions they wrestled with are not so different from the ones we agonise over; we inherit their 'solutions' and half fail to understand where a similarity in terminology does not signify an identity in understanding; a Christian history would have to address such issues. To quote Archbishop Williams (whose thought on this is subtle, and in my view, entirely persuasive):

If all serious history drives us finally ... to recognise that some sort of conversation is possible across surprisingly wide gaps in context and understanding, the same is true far more profoundly for the Christian, for whom such a conversation is the sign of belonging in one network of relations, organised around the pivotal relation with Jesus and his relation with God, into which Christians are inducted. Historical understanding is not a luxury in such a context. [Op. Cit. p. 29]

If we bring that to bear on the case in point here, St. Isaac, I think we transcend the question you pose

what I am trying to ask is what is it about modern history which on the contrary assumes that unless you ask this question, in fact, you do not fully understand St Isaac?
because neither the question nor the putative answer addresses precisely the point you later make so well, namely
for the Church, history is the way in which the person is put into the context of Christ. As such we begin first with the vision which the Church presents us in the icon or lives of the saints or oral tradition. And this precisely is because this is the Church's history
and what I am trying to argue towards is for an understanding and elucidation of that history, and its processes.

The Church and its understandings and its teachings are not a simple linear process; it, and they, do indeed embrace, encapsulate and embody the noetic, even as they do the other modes by which we apprehend ourselves as part of the body of Christ. The Church, as an ark of the believers across the flood of time, has its own history, and it links that which is known to that which is unknown; that which is knowable to that which is not.

So, of course
I honestly believe that if we see the saint within the vision of the Church we will never find a saint to be a heretic no matter what 'facts' come our way.
but the whole point of the 'facts' was not to enter an argument about 'heresy', but to transcend it, by asking questions about the boundaries of the Church across time and space, in the shadow of the Cross, and in the knowledge of the love of God.

To say that we believe it is so because the Church says it so, is fine up to a point, but if we are unable to show how it is so, and how we, as the body of Christ have understood this, and why we have been obedient, even unto death, we run the risk I mentioned earlier. To say we believe because the Church teaches it is so either encapsulates a series of divine and profound insights, the outlines of which, at least, we ought to be able to explore and explain, or it amounts to the sort of stereotype our enemies have long used against us; that we believe without understanding.

One of the insights from the Christian past as we have it, not least in Orthodoxy, is that far from there being a barrier and a dichotomy between the intellect and the faith, the two work well together. Origen, Irenaeus, St. Cyril, even, dare I say, St. Augustine, were men of great faith, and intellect - and the insights provided by the latter to the former are, thank God, available to us all today. But have we added to that store of wisdom? Or, in an odd reversal of the secular Whig theory of history, which sees things always getting better, do we see things as downhill ever since - well, name a date?

The temptations to read our history in this way have seldom been resisted for long. It was all OK in Apostolic times, then those wily Hellenes infected the purity of the early Faith with its free Grace and fellowship with philosophical concepts; or, it was OK until those blasted legalistic Latins deviated from what had always been taught; or until the Vatican spoilt matters; or until the Enlightenment and the secular humanistic mindset ruined things; or until nationalism poisoned things; or - well, you pays your money and takes your choice.

I deliberately guy the caricatures, but they make the point that we tend to see our history as one of discontinuities which need to be made new; we miss the history of the continuities of the body of Christ in history witnessing to His agency through time, space and us.

This is enough for now. But it is an attempt to probe the outlines of a type of history which would relate to the faith in a very different way than classical music does.

I see that in the long time this has taken me, Matthew and Peter have posted; there is no discourtesy meant in not responding to excellent points you both make in this - but I am sure there will be 'amens' to the thought this is long enough!

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

16-04-2007, 05:48 PM

Dear John

Thank you for another interesting post. I think I agree with you that if we could see more truly Christian history then it would be a challenge to the secular diet we often are left to feed on. I have often found myself reading a secular work of history and being deeply frustrated because the author clearly does not understand Christianity, and/or does not speak from within the Christian experience of life in Christ. This is not the same as saying that I need to always find an author says what I agree with, but there is a very different tone and spirit about history written from within the Church.

I wanted to add that of course this desire to be historical, especially about St Isaac, really has nothing at all to do with diminishing anyone's faith as a member of the Eastern Orthodox communion. As far as I am concerned, at least, I am much more interested in how St Isaac came to be venerated by the Oriental Orthodox, my own Orthodox communion.

On the one hand I want to simply read St Isaac and be blessed by the fruit of his own experience of Christ, but on the other I want to know about the times in which he lived, the relationship between his own Christian community and my own, how his writings came to be transmitted to the Oriental Orthodox monastic communities of Palestine and the Egyptian deserts, whether his writings were transmitted under his own name or anothers, and whether or not his background was known by those who received his writings.

Do I want to know these things so that I can judge the Church, or to consider myself wiser than others? Of course not. But I find that the lessons learned have a direct bearing on how I conduct myself in regard to others. This history teaches me that I must not treat a Roman Catholic, or a member of the Church of the East, or any Christian, as a mere cipher, as a stereotypical 'heretic' of whatever appropriate label, but this person might also be someone whom God has chosen to be wholly deified according to His will, and He might in the future chose to use this person or that person to give a message of life to the whole Church. Therefore I need to be much more circumspect in my dealings with others.

This history also teaches me that I must be much more silent in regard to judging who is in and out of the Church. And since I do not know who is in or out of the Church, nor is it my place to judge, I should treat all those who love Christ as people who might be a new St Isaac.

This is why the history of St Isaac is important to me, and I am no theological liberal and I do not believe all roads lead up the mountain or any other such models. But St Isaac teaches me that there is much I do not know about God's way, and I need to be more charitable, less judgemental, more open to seeing God at work outside the formal bounds of my own Oriental Orthodox communion.

The same historical lessons apply in many of those cases where both the EO and OO, and others venerate a person. The Holy Empress Theodora for instance, is an important saint in the Oriental Orthodox Church and she preserved the Church almost single handedly by protecting patriarchs, organising conferences and establishing successions, but she was also part of the Imperial court. Is she Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox? Or are those categories too small for God's activities in the world?

I don't find any of this history threatening. It is what happened. St Isaac was probably a Nestorian and fully accepted the terminology of the Church of the East. But I don't need to raise my hands in horror and consider that the Church venerates a Nestorian, nor do I need to diminish the value of history and say that he was really an Oriental Orthodox, rather it challenges me to understand better what being a 'Nestorian' means. If one can be Orthodox, as St Isaac is, while using a Nestorian terminology, then perhaps I need to be a little more humble when I deal with and study others who use that terminology.

Your mileage may vary, but these are the lessons I learn from these instances, and others, where a saint 'belongs' to a variety of communions.

Peter

Father David Moser

16-04-2007, 05:48 PM

As long as we proclaim a creation and an incarnation, we proclaim a story, an economy, a history. We speak of the faith 'of our fathers' or proclaim the truth of 'the God of Abaraham, of Isaac, of Jacob'; a Christ who 'when the time had come' took flesh. The councils look backward to what has gone before; the fathers inherit and articulate the mystery experienced in ascetical encounter.

This is our history, and we must re-learn how to understand it.

First, I am not really an historian - so I can't really speak to history as a science (or art). However, I am an Orthodox Christian and a priest and so I can speak of history as a part of our faith.

Matthew's point is, I think, important for all of us. I know that if often find it useful and even necessary to relate historical events in my homilies. I do this not because people don't know what happened, but rather because we need to understand what happened in the larger context of how these events (as do all historical events, particularly those related in the Scripture) fit into the economy of our salvation. Thus it is necessary, especially in these days of the ascendency of secular history, to retell the stories of history in their context as events in God's economy of salvation. This is how the father's have understood history and how they have presented it to us and thus it is an approach that we also need to use in presenting not only history, but also the whole Gospel of our salvation to our flocks.

Fr David Moser

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-04-2007, 06:16 PM

Dear Peter,

When I write:

I am not sure why, since it seemed to be the only reasonable response to some posts in this thread which have said that history is not spiritually supportive. If not supportive then surely damaging?

I am referring to at least two things which I am trying to draw together in most of what I have written.

One is that by 'history is not spiritually supportive' I mean the methodology of modern history: the resting of truth on human critical analysis, etc rather than that of the context of Christ.

Now of course one can argue that modern history is considerably more open to the Church than what I have described (a point I don't really agree with in terms of the way history defines truth whether it be favourable to religion or not). But again my point is not about this. It's about how history as a modern disciplines sees truth. And it is this I don't find 'spiritually supportive'.

Secondly something I should have perhaps more clearly written is that at the back of my mind as I have been posting is the thought of how does what we are discussing refer to our rule of prayer. What I mean is our spiritual discipline where we pray and read spiritual literature. No spiritual father I know of would recommend history books at this time. But they would the Lives of Saints.

Why? Because one is 'spiritually supportive' in a particular way while the other is not. Or use any terms you want. There is something diluted at best in the truth of history and confused or distorted at worst.

This is something I think we need to look at far more than we have. I don't know if I'm getting to same point as Matthew. But pastorally not enough thought is given to the 'spiritual' things we do as Orthodox Christians and 'the other things' like reading history, literature, listening to music or whatever. On this we seem too often to go to extremes on this issue either trying to equate these 'other things' with those of the Church or trying to hide them like a dirty secret. Either way it is spiritually harmful.

This is only my personal take but I think discernment and humility are crucial to the 'other things'. It shouldn't be that just anything goes for our reading and listening to music. On the other hand though, even though history for example (I speak as someone who reads history a fair amount) is not the pure ascetic wine of the Church, we are yet weak, and pulling on the bow constantly will break most of us. So if in some way those 'other things' leads us to a moral or spiritual consideration- it is alright in it's place and time. But this has to be surrounded by an effort at humble self-regard or else we will drift into seeing these activities as equal to prayer or reading the Lives of the Saints.

I have however known those who set these things aside bit by bit over time. This is very common and points to a truth about these other things. I also think this is very important.

Anyway- that's what I think of history.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-04-2007, 06:51 PM

Dear John,

I have chosen to quote the following from you post as it sums up most clearly the point I am constantly thinking (even if not writing it out clearly enough!).

We must beware of getting to any position which looks as though we are saying that we can ignore the past when it does not suit what we believe; that would be to close ourselves down intellectually. It would mean that our view of what the 'mind of the Church' is, could never be challenged because we believe only what we have been taught and ignore any criticism. That is the sort of mindset which has led to schism in the past; its resemblance to the mindset of a cult would worry me. I am not saying that that is what is being said here, simply that we ought to avoid even giving that impression; I hope we have.

Doesn't much of this question have to do both with how we see the past and how we we see real people within this past? So much of what we attempt as Orthodox Christians seems to center on this.

Constantly we relate to people. But we also know that due to our own sinfulness and weakness we constantly miss the mark & misinterpret. Seeing the person in the Light of Christ is like gradually peeling away the layers of an onion. But the layers are really our sin which distorts how we see others. So seeing others is part of an ongoing repentant and ascetic enterprise on our part.

But then if this is so, then isn't history part and parcel of this same process? That is: we aren't just interested in listing facts or critically investigating them. Rather, just as with those around us (or better, as part of this) we see and re-see and re-see over and over and over again gradually getting to what is most real. Thus it often is that how we see someone today we recognize years later to have been a grave delusion. Something from our own vision was missing.

This isn't a matter of seeing more or from a different point of view. Rather it is seeing through the eyes of Christ which sheds such a radically different light on what we take as reality and recasts it in Its own Light.

I don't know- but to me this is what I think of as history within the Church. It's not a one shot deal that can stop everything in time and from critical analysis discover the truth. Rather this history is an ongoing process of gradual recognition.

I guess one further point in all this which only came to me now but lies behind many of my assumptions- I find modern history to be ahistorical in fact in the way it abstracts minute points of a whole life and then tries to give it cosmic significance.

I guess this is part & parcel of the risk in any history & even part of what led to its 'invention' by the ancient Greeks (ie seeing a larger human significance in particular points in time). But so much of modern history pulls the balance so far towards the particular that in a way the final point is that we are slaves of our environment and without freedom.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father Serafim

16-04-2007, 07:02 PM

I remember Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) telling the story of a holy elder who was a heretic. His deacon, who loved the old man, pointed out that the elder's beliefs were heretical. "If I am a heretic, then why does an angel serve with me at the Divine Liturgy?" "I don't know father, but your views are heretical all the same!" At the next Liturgy, the elder again saw the angel. This time he asked the angel whether he was a heretic or not. To his surprise, the angel said - yes, your views are herectical. "Then why do you serve with me?" "Because of the deacon's love for you". The next day, the elder listened to the deacon and corrected his herectical views.

Peter Farrington

16-04-2007, 07:26 PM

Dear Father

I know what you mean about history sometimes being ahistorical by failing to take account of the wider context, but that strikes me as a description of just bad history.

I'm not wholly sure what you mean in a more general sense though because much of the church history I read is actually quite interesting and stimulating and is written by committed and devout Christians, including Orthodox. I do read bad history as well, but I am usually always aware that it is bad history because it fails to be true, or is warped in some way, or isn't really rooted in the wider historical context.

It may perhaps be the case that monastics might be counselled to avoid history, but I am not sure of this since most of the historical ecclesial chronicles which have come down to us seem to have been written by monastics. And I must mention Bede because he was a historian even while he was writing history for a purpose, as indeed all history is written with a purpose in mind, but he was a monastic historian writing within a longer and wider monastic historiographical context.

Soon I shall be reading a history of the Plymouth Brethren movement. I am quite sure that I will learn valuable lessons from it. Are they as valuable as reading St Isaac directly? Certainly not, but they are valuable none the less, and I am sure that at one level they will be true, that is a faithful record of what happened, and an attempt to understand the inner meaning of what happened. I don't think I ask for more from history, and I don't ask for much more in regard to St Isaac.

Peter

M.C. Steenberg

16-04-2007, 07:35 PM

Constantly we relate to people. But we also know that due to our own sinfulness and weakness we constantly miss the mark & misinterpret. Seeing the person in the Light of Christ is like gradually peeling away the layers of an onion. But the layers are really our sin which distorts how we see others. So seeing others is part of an ongoing repentant and ascetic enterprise on our part.

But then if this is so, then isn't history part and parcel of this same process? That is: we aren't just interested in listing facts or critically investigating them. Rather, just as with those around us (or better, as part of this) we see and re-see and re-see over and over and over again gradually getting to what is most real. Thus it often is that how we see someone today we recognize years later to have been a grave delusion. Something from our own vision was missing.

This seems to me right at the heart of things. Of course, it must be balanced. It isn't only the case, in most instances, that something was missing from our own vision; it is also at times the case that bare awareness was incorrect - e.g. we thought someone was American when in fact they were Canadian, we thought someone simply self controlled around drink who was in fact alcoholic, et cetera. The process of interpersonal perception is both ascetical (refinement of the way we see) and receptive of more accurate characteristics (refinements of what we see).

INXC, Matthew

Nina

16-04-2007, 08:13 PM

John Charmley

16-04-2007, 10:45 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Matthew, Dear Peter,

I am rather with Peter's suspicion that what Fr. Raphael is sometimes describing is bad history; there's a lot of it about. In my last post in this thread I used a phrase that bears repeating

The questions they [Christians in the past] wrestled with are not so different from the ones we agonise over; we inherit their 'solutions' and half fail to understand where a similarity in terminology does not signify an identity in understanding
Unless we have a sense of change over time, we do indeed make this mistake; it happens quite often in discussions of Christian history, and we have, ourselves had occasion to mention the inadequacy of using the label 'Nestorian' as though it ever had a single meaning, and as though it had that single meaning now. Archbishop Williams is right to say that good theology cannot come from bad history.

This is, I suspect, one of the things Peter is getting towards when he writes

This history teaches me that I must not treat a Roman Catholic, or a member of the Church of the East, or any Christian, as a mere cipher, as a stereotypical 'heretic' of whatever appropriate label, but this person might also be someone whom God has chosen to be wholly deified according to His will, and He might in the future chose to use this person or that person to give a message of life to the whole Church. Therefore I need to be much more circumspect in my dealings with others.

Now, being the cautious soul I am, I cavil a little at 'history' teaching one anything as such, but I know what Peter means in practice. Indeed, the quotation from Fr. Raphael's post in Matthew's last one, makes the point I have been making about the methodology and practice of what I would term good history; which is rather similar to Peter's point if we apply it in this instance.

Poor history, influenced by polemic or a priori assumptions may seize on the 'fact' that St. Isaac was Nestorian and try to use that to unsettle people or make a debating point; indeed, in debating with someone at this level, one gets oneself involved in an unedifying and ultimately sterile process. That is not the fault of history; it is the fault of bad history. So, keeping to this instance of St. Isaac, what is it good history might do?

Well, Peter takes us along a possible route, but again, it is the questions, not the answers that matter; why? Because they open us up to a broader understanding of what it has been, is, and may yet be, to be a member of the body of Christ across time and space. Bad history bogs down in polemic because it is 'closed'; it asks no useful questions, and seeks only those answers it already thinks it knows. That is why you are correct, Father, to see good history as
Seeing the person in the Light of Christ is like gradually peeling away the layers of an onion. But we must not think we can describe how many layers the onion has in advance.

Good history proceeds between what has been called 'the known knowns' to discern the 'known unknowns', before touching on the 'unknown unknowns' and making them 'known' (@ Mr. Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld). This is a complex and nuanced process. We know St. Isaac was a Nestorian. We know he is accepted as a Saint. We know his teachings are widely respected and venerated. We know the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and other Churches concur in considering his works edifying.

We think we know a pile of other stuff, some of which makes us want to question the idea he was a 'Nestorian'. Why don't we want to question whether his teaching is edifying? Whether he has been formally acknowledged as a Saint in the Eastern and Oriental traditions - and what that means in practice? I suspect because we can all be happy with all those Churches' 'take' on his teachings, and accept that what he writes is worthy of being received by members of the body of Christ. It is only when we get to that sensitive point, which involves some thinking about where the boundaries of 'the Church' might be, that the word 'Nestorian' sets off alarm bells for some. If we can either deny that the saint was a 'Nestorian', or say 'we don't really know', or say that 'history is a dubious activity, so whatever it shows us is suspect', we can actually avoid getting into the difficult territory of asking questions about the boundaries of what constitutes the body of Christ.

If we think polemically and defensively, even having such thoughts could be viewed as an exercise in false ecumenism and possible syncretism; that would be a shame, because it closes down thinking about a difficult but important question for any Christian history; how do we relate across time and space to other Christians, especially those outside our own communion?

There are no pat answers to this question, not least because any attempts to deal with it involve our asking questions about labels and their changing significance across time and space and linguistic boundaries. God's love is infinite; our love is not; His wisdom is infinite; we get to the starting block with immense difficulty; He is universal; we think in smaller compass; He died for us all; we think we are the all. He saves us all; we circumscribe His salvation - or do we? These are only some of the beginner's questions that we need to start to ask if we are to begin to comprehend the 'known knowns' about St. Isaac.

We shall not understand them, or the others we need to ask, without going into what the mind of the Church is across time and space, and its interaction with His Spirit through the economy of the Incarnation. To try to understand these things may well, as Peter suggests, lead us to the place Peter thinks:
... that there is much I do not know about God's way, and I need to be more charitable, less judgemental, more open to seeing God at work outside the formal bounds of my own Oriental Orthodox communion or it may lead us somewhere else entirely.

But what the process will do - and it is the process that also matters - is to lead us towards some understanding beyond we now have of what its has meant to be a Christian, a member of the mystical body of Christ, that can accommodate all our versions of salvation being found in our Church alone, all our disputes and quarrels, all our belief in the love of God and His righteous anger; and the mystery of a Nestorian Saint whom we all venerate. I have no idea where such a history might lead us, because no one is writing it.

There is, however, another sense in which I can discern what might happen on the way to writing (and reading) such a history. We might discover more about what it means to be a Christian, living a Eucharistic and prayerful life in the shadow of the Cross, and how the Spirit is manifested through the mind of the Church, and the ascetic lives of Christians of all sorts and conditions.

As this touches on Patristics, we might, for example, see that the debates about doctrine in the early Church arose not because of a concern for verbal precision in intellectual arguments that were far removed from the concerns of ordinary Christians, but rather, as later, and as now, came from a real debate about what it meant to be a member of the body of Christ, and to live a life in the shadow of the Cross and the sure and certain hope of the Resurrection. In short, what might it mean to take seriously our claim that the ultimate legitimacy and coherence of human life lies in Christ - upon whom human history converges.

That goes beyond bad history, and probably way beyond our comfort zones, demanding of us a humility that accepts that His ways are not our ways, and that in our sinful pride we crucify Him every day. It calls for us to consecrate our intelligence to understand how little we understand - and nothing without Him. It is a better way of making some sense of parts of the second type of knowledge, and of instructing us of what it is to be a Christian, a resident alien in the secular world. It is a history that is spiritually useful - as all the knowledge He gives us access to is - used aright and in his service.

If we complain about bad history, and we don't like its results, we have only ourselves to blame - as usual - although, also as usual, we will seek to place it elsewhere.

This does, I suspect, transcend some of the points we are making seriatim but I hope, as an attempt to delineate the principles of Christian history, it makes some points we might ponder.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

16-04-2007, 11:09 PM

Thank you for a very thought provoking post, and much more intelligent than any of mine.

We should be glad to have a professional Orthodox Christian historian here on the forum with us. I am certainly glad.

Peter

M.C. Steenberg

18-04-2007, 06:19 PM

A last word here. I most certainly do not believe that modern Syriac scholars are covering St Isaac with mercy. If they have not printed the 'incriminating evidence' that St Isaac is a Nestorian, then it's because they are unsure of their evidence. These translations have seen the light of day for at least 20 years now. Syriac scholars aren't a guild sworn to an oath of honour. If the definitive evidence existed in reality an article about it would have appeared by now.

This is actually an interesting comment. I would be extremely curious for further information on the status of such matters amongst Syriac scholars (of which I am not one).

Purely as an observation, and not as a commentary, I must say that it for all the various claims - often from reputable scholars whom I trust - that there are elements of St Isaac's extant writings that display Nestorian characteristics or content, I have not in fact encountered an article or volume that makes this explicit through quotation / translation / presentation of such passages, either in English translation or the original. I admit that I'm not a dedicated scholar of St Isaac, so have not made a thoroughgoing search for such a text; but it is curious that such a controversial subject has not produced some clear documentation on this.

Does anyone know of a text, in any language, that gives either actual translation of, or even explicit reference to, passages in Isaac's corpus that are firm evidence of Nestorian orientation? I would be most grateful.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-04-2007, 12:35 AM

This is actually an interesting comment. I would be extremely curious for further information on the status of such matters amongst Syriac scholars (of which I am not one).

Purely as an observation, and not as a commentary, I must say that it for all the various claims - often from reputable scholars whom I trust - that there are elements of St Isaac's extant writings that display Nestorian characteristics or content, I have not in fact encountered an article or volume that makes this explicit through quotation / translation / presentation of such passages, either in English translation or the original. I admit that I'm not a dedicated scholar of St Isaac, so have not made a thoroughgoing search for such a text; but it is curious that such a controversial subject has not produced some clear documentation on this.

Does anyone know of a text, in any language, that gives either actual translation of, or even explicit reference to, passages in Isaac's corpus that are firm evidence of Nestorian orientation? I would be most grateful.

INXC, Matthew

In the 5th Discourse #66 of St Isaac's On the Ascetical Life (SVS 1989) is found:

And He [ie God] has not made you inerrant in your soul lest you be as those having bound natures* and you acquire your good things and your evil things without profit and without reward, as do other corporeal beings on the earth.

The footnote for this passage (which I have marked with an asterisk *) reads:

"Bound natures" is in contrast to "mutability" in the schemata of Theodore of Mopsuestia assumed by Isaac. Mutability, corruptibility, passibility and mortality constitute this aeon. The future world will be one of immutability, incorruptibility, impassibility and immortality. Life in this age becomes a training and time of growth to prepare for the perfect obedience and immutability of the age to come.

This footnote is by the translator. I myself haven't read Theodore of Mopsuestia beyond the minimum. So I can't vouch for its interpretation. But at face value there seems no real need to object to what the translator writes. It hardly seems like 'Nestorianism' except maybe as being some sort of general manner of expression used by some within the Persian church.

In any case this is the only reference of this sort in the work that I could manage to find.

The translation was made from a Syriac text.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

19-04-2007, 12:47 AM

Thank you for that initial response, Fr Raphael. I would be particularly grateful for further texts or passage references.

I've stated my view, many times, that St Isaac was clearly a member of a Nestorian Church. But I must admit that, reading back through some of the discussion in this thread, that it does seem a touch on the strange side that I've not in fact encountered any clear text from his corpus the substantiates this; my understanding of his situation is largely based on the ecclesiastical geography of the day (he was clearly within the bounds of the Church of the East); and, as I say, I have immense respect for and trust in various scholars who have written that certain of Isaac's writings contain clearly Nestorian theological elements. I should like to see these, since, as a general practice and method, I like to see a writer actually say something Arian before calling him an Arian, or something Apollinarian before terming him an Apollinarian. And given my own statements on there being evidence of Isaac's writings containing Nestorian elements, it seems strange not to have something to hand to give grounding to this.

I would be grateful to have reference to such passages, should anyone know of any.

As I've said rather at length before, it is not a matter of great concern to me that St Isaac may have indeed written authentically Nestorian things, and even been genuinely Nestorian (whatever that is taken to mean). But I would feel more comfortable actually knowing these, rather than simply assuming it.

INXC, Matthew

Andrew

19-04-2007, 03:47 AM

I think a major issue with academic history and the life of the Church is that reality is not governed by linear time, whereas history views reality as a collection of linear events that are analyzed according to various criteria... not that this method is bad, but it misses the mark of the true meaning of existence, which is total communion and deification.

Saint Isaac is a man who is deified. He entered into a state of life that is beyond time, because it is life within Christ who is the Divine Logos that governs and fills all existence. He was transfigured by the same energies that keep everything in existence. History is about events and their meaning, whereas reality itself is a communion of Persons created for the eternal Communion of the Eighth Day that Saint Isaac was initiated into. I can't speak much else of this, because I do not have his experience! But still, I think transfigured "history" in Christ is one that has all those transfigured in Christ living within him and in a sense communing with past, present, and future, so that time no longer has it's hold... This is why saints of ancient days still walk the Earth today. Do saints of the future walk in the past, for they have entered into Divine Time? I don't know. I would like someone with experience of this to tell me. Is there anything relating to this in the experience of holy ascetics?

The way events are in their truth and light, in the transfigured vision of those deified, in the Body of Christ, is presented to us in an iconic form... in the lives of the saints, in icons, and such things. It is higher than history or photography or such things, because it is designed to point us towards theosis. Same with the liturgy, which is iconic.

I'm sorry if I'm rambling. I don't want to enter into fruitless speculation, and I don't know if this post will even be readable! Forgive me if it's hard to follow.

John Charmley

19-04-2007, 07:58 AM

Dear Matthew,

As I've said rather at length before, it is not a matter of great concern to me that St Isaac may have indeed written authentically Nestorian things, and even been genuinely Nestorian (whatever that is taken to mean). But I would feel more comfortable actually knowing these, rather than simply assuming it.

Ah, but in this you come to an important point, which the very absence of material you seem to think ought to exist (if I read you aright) speaks to in much the same way as the dog that did not bark in the night was significant to Sherlock Holmes.

It may simply be that nothing St. Isaac wrote involved him saying anything you or others might find Nestorian; I would doubt that given the usual human ability to find whatever it is we think we are looking for; but it may, of course (as your own bracketed comment above may be taken to perhaps imply) be that the absence of such words might actually make one start to wonder about the labels; which is one of the implications of my point about the boundaries of the Church and the limiting (or not) of God's compassion. Our ability, as Christians, to find points of division (and then treat our history as though that was its point) never ceases to occasion sadness, considering His comments about unity.

The utility of combing St. Isaac's works to discover 'Nestorianism' (whatever that might be taken to be) is not wholly apparent; sometimes one just has to accept what others assure one is so, and one has to live with any discomfort. Professor Brock's words are good enough for me. Were one to discern traces, there seems little doubt that some would then question that interpretation for reasons you have eloquently delineated above. Indeed, rather than wondering why Syriac scholars have not found Nestorianism and used it for polemic purposes, it might be better to ask why they should have been looking for it? Indeed, to ask why they don't feel the need to go with fine tooth-combs to find points of difference? And then, of course, to turn the question round and ask why any one would wish so to do.

If we are not careful we will end up against that hard question of whether we attempt to limit God's compassion. An interpretation of the Body of Christ that includes St. Isaac and his 'Nestorianism' asks us complex questions - so it is not altogether a cause for surprise that we should prefer to ask our own questions instead. What the dogs bark at, as Holmes did not say, can tell one as much as what they fail to bark at.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

19-04-2007, 10:58 AM

Dear John and others,

Thank you for the thought-provoking comments. However, I'm curious about some of what you've written in your recent post.

Ah, but in this you come to an important point, which the very absence of material you seem to think ought to exist (if I read you aright) speaks to in much the same way as the dog that did not bark in the night was significant to Sherlock Holmes.

It may simply be that nothing St. Isaac wrote involved him saying anything you or others might find Nestorian

An argument of presumption is not convincing grounding on which to explore Christian history, especially in a field such as this, where so much assumption, to whatever angle or end, is based on histories of polemic and misinterpretation. Part of where this whole thread began was with the question as to whether St Isaac wrote / thought 'Nestorian' things or not, since many claim he did, many claim he didn't. Of course this brings up the questions of what one means by 'Nestorianism', but unless one is actually calling specific texts to mind when one says 'Isaac was a Nestorian', then whatever points one may wish to make about boundries of the Church, of sanctity, etc., quite lose their meaning. They are reduced to agendas being argued, rather than considerations of the actual example of this particular figure.

This is in part why the content of your recent post surprised me, especially in light of various comments you've made above, for example in your posts #47 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44033&postcount=47), #65 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44177&postcount=65), and particularly your #63 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44166&postcount=63), where you wrote:

Yes, St. Isaac was a Nestorian, yes the Church accepts him as a Saint because his teachings are Orthodox. So, go ask what that might mean, and what we, each of us, might learn from it. We do not need to suspend disbelief or park our intellects at the Church door; belief and intellect ought to work together - as they have done in the past, do now in some places, and need to in more in the future.

Here there is a willingness to admit the title to Isaac, from which you (quite rightly, it seems to me) then go on to raise questions of terminology, titles, boundries, etc. This is of course what I have also done; my point in my more recent posts is that if we are going to take such a 'given', there should be some foundation to it. It was in fact you who wrote that 'we do not need to suspend disbelief or park our intellects at the Church door', and this really must work both ways. If Isaac was a 'Nestorian', then let us see it, so we know we are doing more than repeating hearsay when we say as much.

Interestingly, you suggested quite clearly that such passages do in fact exist in St Isaac's corpus, but that scholars have not focussed on them out of a desire not to engage in polemic. This was in your post #67 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44203&postcount=67):

When you ask why Syriac scholars do not use Nestorian passages from the saint to demolish our faith, I simply wonder why they would want to? History is not polemic, and scholars should refrain from engagement with the polemic of those who wish to throw mud.

This and the above struck me as quite discordant with what you've written more recently:

the absence of such words might actually make one start to wonder about the labels [...]

The utility of combing St. Isaac's works to discover 'Nestorianism' (whatever that might be taken to be) is not wholly apparent; sometimes one just has to accept what others assure one is so, and one has to live with any discomfort. Professor Brock's words are good enough for me.

On the one hand, it seems strange to suggest that such passages are not present, as a kind of conviction, especially based on earlier comments. But it seems stranger still to suggest that there is something errant in the desire to look for the same in the context of a discussion such as this. What you're essentially arguing is for the acceptance of a conclusion without grounding -- though it appears the conclusion you're suggesting has changed somewhat.

I, too, trust Dr Brock's scholarship. He is a top-notch historian and a master in his field. But careful study does not just take another's word for things, whoever the other may be. If Dr Brock has written that certain of Isaac's text contain identifiably Nestorian elements, then he had a reason (I say 'if' simply because I've not actually read the text in which he does so); and one presumes, given his calibre as a scholar, that this reason is grounded in clear textual support. I would like to read those texts. This is obviously not to doubt him, or to wish to engage in polemic; but a desire to actually know that a statement I am making has actual foundation.

This is precisely out of a desire to give some actual grounding to discussion, rather than simple speculation. That simply confuses matters. For example, in the same post in which you suggest that Dr Brock does know of Nestorian passages in Isaac, you also write:

Indeed, rather than wondering why Syriac scholars have not found Nestorianism and used it for polemic purposes, it might be better to ask why they should have been looking for it? Indeed, to ask why they don't feel the need to go with fine tooth-combs to find points of difference? And then, of course, to turn the question round and ask why any one would wish so to do.

And yet you've grounded your reliance on Dr Brock on grounds that he has done precisely this. This is part of the reason I find the defensiveness of your most recent post on this topic confounding. You've almost walked yourself into a position where you're claiming a kind of 'it is so because I've been told it is so' or 'because I believe it is so' argument that you've (rightly) criticised in others in the above.

I rather suspect the reason is a genuine and sincere concern over the following, which comes from the end of your most recent post in this thread:

If we are not careful we will end up against that hard question of whether we attempt to limit God's compassion. An interpretation of the Body of Christ that includes St. Isaac and his 'Nestorianism' asks us complex questions - so it is not altogether a cause for surprise that we should prefer to ask our own questions instead.

The questions of human attempts to limit God's compassion, of boundries of the Church, etc., are critical. As are the questions of attached labels. Much attention has been paid in this forum, for example, on the question of 'Nestorianism', and what that title really implies or does not imply.

But asking for textual references to support claims made in either direction is not 'asking our own questions instead'; it is attempting to locate secure grounding for the study of a real person. It is useless to speculate on the implications of St Isaac's example for the broad issues you raise here at the end, if one refuses to engage squarely with Isaac himself. Was he a great ascetic who shone with sanctity as a Nestorian and thus provides us with real and fruitful questions as to human perceptions of the boundries of God's compassion and grace? How can one know, if one is unwilling to actually see whether he thought or wrote things that place him in this situation. Should more careful consideration of the ambiguities and biases of the titles 'Nestorian' and 'Nestorianism' cause us to look with new light on what St Isaac actually said and thought? How can we possible answer that without looking at the texts, particularly those that individuals in the past have used to make claims for longstanding definitions of these terms?

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

19-04-2007, 12:24 PM

Dear Matthew

I am not sure that St Issac is called a Nestorian because he wrote clearly Nestorian theology or not, surely he is rather called a Nestorian (though I try to avoid that term in relation to any ecclesial body) because he was a bishop in a communion which venerated Nestorius and was rooted in the teaching of Theodore and Diodore?

If we do not find any record of St Isaac writing clearly Nestorian theology does this mean he was not a Nestorian? Or does it perhaps mean that the term Nestorian should not be used indiscriminately of the communion he belonged to?

There is a wider application. I have never knowingly written anything which could be called Eutychian yet I am routinely described as a Eutychian or monophysite heretic. I do not expect this to be discussed here, but it is pertinent.

For myself, I would rather work through the implications of having perhaps mislabeled all members of a particular communion as Nestorian (which my own tradition does) than try to find a way to make St Isaac actually a member of the EO or OO in some relative sense.

Can we document here those scholars who have described him as a member of the communion which venerated Theodore and Diodore and Nestorius? Are there references to primary texts which support this attribution? Can we ask the authors why they describe St Isaac as they do?

Peter

John Charmley

19-04-2007, 02:01 PM

Dear Matthew,

I can see how this
You've almost walked yourself into a position where you're claiming a kind of 'it is so because I've been told it is so' or 'because I believe it is so' argument that you've (rightly) criticised in others in the above
might be read from what I have posted, simply because the main thrust of what is being said does not lie along the axis of Nestorianism; my dogs don't bark much there; for those whose dogs do, yes, it becomes a matter of primary importance.

The Nestorian enterprise is secondary to the major task, which you do, indeed, identify. When you write
It is useless to speculate on the implications of St Isaac's example for the broad issues you raise here at the end, if one refuses to engage squarely with Isaac himself. Was he a great ascetic who shone with sanctity as a Nestorian and thus provides us with real and fruitful questions as to human perceptions of the boundries of God's compassion and grace it is possible to come at it in another way. He shone with sanctity, as he still does - as a member of a Church which others have labelled Nestorian. To do so raises the big questions, but does not foreclose saying something about the labels; although not always the case, it is often the case that the label means more to the one using it, than to the one to whom it is applied. Although not necessarily so, this is often a barrier to further understanding.

On one basic level, Peter is surely correct when he writes
I am not sure that St Issac is called a Nestorian because he wrote clearly Nestorian theology or not, surely he is rather called a Nestorian (though I try to avoid that term in relation to any ecclesial body) because he was a bishop in a communion which venerated Nestorius and was rooted in the teaching of Theodore and Diodore? After all, unless one were bound in the direction of an argument (which I think I have seen used) that said: well, he may have belonged to a Nestorian Church, but as he did not say 'Nestorian things' so he wasn't really a Nestorian, simply an Orthodox saint in an area where he couldn't belong to an Orthodox Church; what matters on the bigger level is not whether we can nail down something we can attach the label to - and then question what the label might mean - but to take the question of a bishop from a Nestorian Church who is regarded by all Orthodox (and others) as a Saint.

Your comment that
unless one is actuallycalling specific texts to mind when one says 'Isaac was a Nestorian', then whatever points one may wish to make about boundries of the Church, of sanctity, etc., quite lose their meaning is an interesting one. Why would that be necessarily so?

Of course, if one did identify
'Nestorian' things being written by the saint, that would indeed raise the really big question; if that is why we need to locate whether or not some of the things he wrote were 'Nestorian', then we are on the same hymn-sheet, and the tune may even be the same one (although hardly identifiable from my tone-deafness).

That would be to include the bigger question, and also the interesting points which you make. But I still suspect that however interesting the
the actual example of this particular figure
may be (and is), too great a focus on him may actually prove a distraction from the bigger issues being raised. It might (although not necessarily) allow one to make contingent arguments for particular cases; which is rather what was meant when writing about constructing ones own questions.

None of which is to say actual examples of 'Nestorian things' might not be useful; but although they would add to the discussion, they would not necessarily configure it. His Church is labelled by others as Nestorian. Unless we have grounds to believe that he was not a good member of it, then we have an Orthodox Saint and a Nestorian label. Since, for reasons given earlier, we are not much interested in questioning the judgement of the Church over the centuries, we'd be better off asking questions about labels and boundaries and circumscription of God's love; all of which may be worth asking with, or without, St. Isaac - although he does provide a good focus for them.

I'd love to say more on this, and no doubt will - but alas, other pressures intrude.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-04-2007, 04:38 PM

I think that there are really two questions that are important in this discussion.

One is, in what sense was the Church of Persia Nestorian? Was this Nestorianism in terms of the heresy that we condemned? Or is it a Nestorianism that centres on what we call the Antiochene tradition & includes a veneration of those such as Theodore of Mopsuestia who were later condemned by us? For those who have access to the Brookline translation of St Isaac's Homilies there is a very good Translator's Epilogue in this edition which goes into the history of the Persian Church up to the 7th century. The basic argument of this article is that the Persian church was rarely if ever Nestorian in a heretical sense; that it was unique in its range of theological expression due to its position outside of the Byzantine Empire and orbit; and that indeed there were times when there was very close contact between the Byzantine Orthodox & Persian churches.

My own sense of this from this article and my reading of the Persians is that rarely within the Persian church did one encounter Nestorianianism in the sense of what we would condemn as a heresy. At times one can encounter problematic Antiochene Christological language; but I wouldn't say this was so problematic as to be heretical. And at many other times the language although unique in its manner of expression is clearly acceptable by our standards.

Not least of the problems of the question is due to the fact that the great majority of writings which have come down to us- or at least have been translated into English- deal with themes of prayer, usually of a noetic sort, where the influence of Evagrius, who is hardly an Antiochene, is strong. It is rare to encounter explicitly Christological themes in these writings. But where they do occur it is striking that no false note is given.

A second question however is that of what we read in St Isaac himself. Both spiritually and historically this should not be overlooked. One should ask about the Nestorianism of the church St Isaac was part of. But at the end of the day he was accepted as a saint largely due to the nature of what he wrote.

Here something to the understanding of the Church is central that I do not think has been raised yet. There is an attitude to the intimate connection between praxis and theoria (spiritual practice and theological vision) well summed up in Evagrius' saying:

If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian.

Of course what is said here links praxis with theoria and the other way around also as each really feeds the other.

But the point here is that in the eyes of the Church one cannot find a person of real noetic prayer but with a completely warped theological vision. In some way one will always affect the other.

So if we find in St Isaac such an incredible expression of noetic prayer then this also is witness to the question, not of whether St Isaac was a Nestorian in some general sense, but in an actual heretical way.

In other words what many are actually going by is the internal spiritual evidence of his writings. If one wishes one can call this historical as in a way it operates on similar principles of the reliability of actual evidence. But in this case of course we cannot just use conventional historical interpretive tools. Rather we must either acquire the noetic eyes of St Isaac or else trust those who have. Which again is different from conventional history since here faith, trust and obedience are central.

I believe it is crucial to keep these things in mind in order to understand the criteria by which St Isaac was accepted as a saint within the Church. As I have said previously: St Isaac's acceptance as a saint is explained by the fact that the Church sees in him a saint. That in itself is the chief evidence.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

19-04-2007, 08:00 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Your post is, as ever, interesting, not least because it follows rather the line forecast in my preceding post
... unless one were bound in the direction of an argument (which I think I have seen used) that said: well, he may have belonged to a Nestorian Church, but as he did not say 'Nestorian things' so he wasn't really a Nestorian, simply an Orthodox saint in an area where he couldn't belong to an Orthodox Church - as one with an interest in the use of language, I confess to a fascination with the concept of
Nestorian in a [non] heretical sense. Once we use non-heretical Nestorianism as a kind of synonym for Antiochene Christology then I fear the label has as much utility as 'feudalism'.

When you say
Nestorianism in terms of the heresy that we condemned you essentially define the discussion in a way that gives whatever answer you may desire to find - if you are coining the label, then coining an heretical and a non-heretical use for it, then lining that up against the fact that the Church recognises Isaac the Syrian as a Saint, it isn't terribly hard to predict whether you will opt for the 'heretical' or 'non-heretical'' Nestorianism. For those less attached to such usages, such a wide variation of use suggests the want of utility of such a label.

Of course, ipso facto it has to be correct that
St Isaac's acceptance as a saint is explained by the fact that the Church sees in him a saint. That in itself is the chief evidence but I can't remember anyone recently questioning this somewhat circular argument; of course, it isn't circular once one examines the premise, but it does get bogged down in the old argument about the utility of history. Yes, if one uses bad history and asks poor questions, one gets bad history and probably bad theology.

There is a sense in which this line narrows things down to a concern with something called Nestorianism, a label applied by its opponents to a Church that has never accepted the charge as being true. Naturally one could riposte that it is enough for the Church to have made the charge for it to be true; just as it is enough for the Church to have made one of the bishops of that Church a Saint is enough to make him a saint. We perhaps need to be aware of how like theological imperialism this looks. Sure, the early settlers called the indigenous inhabitants of North America 'Indians' - but they didn't come from India - and the very act of labelling was an assumption of cultural superiority. Perhaps we need to tread carefully over such matters?

The question of whether the very attaching of labels in such a manner is at all helpful, is at the heart of part of this discussion; so too is the matter of the possible paradox of salvation being found only in the Church and yet God's love being found outside of it. In my earlier threads arguing for a more nuanced and Christian history, it was suggested that these questions were worth exploring; it still seems so.

I shall return to the question of St. Isaac and the possibility of suppressed 'Nestorian' passages; but as has been suggested previously, even were one to find a heap of 'heretical Nestorian things' it would make no difference to the fact he is an Orthodox saint - or to the paradoxes therein. Still, as an historian, I am open to the natural challenge of defining terms.

There is a place between 'the Church has decided so we can't question', and 'the evidence means we must understand how and why the Church has reached a decision we cannot understand at our current level'; that might indeed be supplied by the Noetic knowledge of the Church, but since one of the purposes of a Christian history would be to help us understand that across time and space as part of what being part of the body of Christ means, it seems useful to strive towards that place. Not because we can 'know' and 'prove' all by our 'knowledge', but because the questions we ask may be part of the road to illumination.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-04-2007, 11:42 PM

The point I am making is concerning whether the Persian Church was heretical by our terms (ie Eastern Orthodox). There are good arguments that it was not and is not.

Nestorianism can be a specific label referring to the heresy of Nestorius. But it has also been used as a general term for the Persian Church over the centuries. Remember that we are talking about our terms here after all. Due to the Persians following Antiochene theology so closely at certain points there has been a tendency at times for us who are Chalcedonians to think of the Persians as Nestorians. At other times however there have been close relations between us (eg at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries the Russian church was especially close to the Persians. Rocor at one point had a Persian bishop who eventually reposed in America). For this and other reasons particular to the Persians, much of the labeling has been unclear at times.

As for the other points of your post John. I am afraid that I cannot see how they relate to what I actually wrote.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

20-04-2007, 12:08 AM

Dear Matthew, Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Peter,

I am uncertain, given Fr, Raphael's interesting comments, quite what it would even mean to call St. Isaac a Nestorian in a way that made him an heretical Nestorian, instead of one of the other sort; especially since it was the EO Church which first used this label, which has never been accepted by the Church of the East; it gets close to 'when did you stop beating your wife?' And since the EO Church also has the useful label of 'non heretical Nestorian' which it can decide to use if it wants to, the utility of the exercise seems even less than I had at first imagined - especially since I can find no one outside the EO Church who appears to think this really matters.

Still, since this is a Chalcedonian forum, that matters, and the following can be gleaned.

The label appears to have been applied post 533 after the 5th Ecumenical Council, following its condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia - who St. Isaac calls 'the Blessed Interpreter'. The Persian Church, which had no connection with Nestorius found itself labelled Nestorian nonetheless; it has never accepted that this is other than a slander on its reputation; it would seem that those who think it should apply to them ought to explain why, and what they mean by it.

A local council of the east syrian Church in 585 confirmed the authority of Theodore, forbidding anyone 'in open or in secret to defame this Doctor of the Church or to refute his holy books; councils in 596 and 605 confirmed this view. It was only later that the teachings of Nestorius, as expressed in the so-called Bazaar of Heraclides were added to those of Theodore and Diodore of Tarsus, as one of the 'three teachers' of the east syrian Church. Its Christology, and what depended upon that, seems to have been shaped by these three - all of whom were, I think, condemned by the Chalcedonian Church.

It may, of course, be that despite his reverence for Theodore, and his membership of a Church that looked to the other 'teachers', Isaac the Syrian was entirely in accord with Chalcedonian Christology; to say it must have been so because the Eastern Orthodox Church has said so, rather closes down some of the interesting questions which we must needs follow if we keep open the possibility of the paradox that might otherwise emerge.

One line opens up some suggestive questions of its own. In Syriac the word qnoma which is used to translate 'hypostasis' carried the meaning of the individual expression of kyana or nature; Syriac writers, according to +Hilarion (to whom due acknowledgement must be made),
normally spoke of natures and their qnoma. Consequently, whereas Severus of Antioch thought that one hypostasis implies two natures, diophysite writers claimed that two natures imply two hypostases
Such a linguistic confusion, of course, can be shown to have occurred elsewhere.

However, as + Hilarion also says, for the Syrians, Chalcedon was
quite irrelevant ... it was not a Council in which ... [it] ... participated The Bishop observes that if one takes the trouble to actually understand what the Syrians believed (as opposed to sticking labels on them which represented what the EO Church believed they believed) then
east-syrian theologians did speak of two [I]qnome[I] hypostases in connection with the Incarnate Son of God, and the Church of Persia, not having recognised the chalcedonian doctrine of 'one hypostasis in two natures'. found itself in verbal opposition to the byzantine Church
Its theologians used the language of Theodore and Diodore - which the Church had condemned; it was only natural that the EO Church should have labelled the Persian Church 'Nestorian'. After the end of the 7th century the Persian Church was effectively cut off from Chalcedonian influence.

Dr. Brock points out that there is no evidence that St. Isaac knew Greek; all his references are either to Syriac sources, in particular Theodore, or to Syriac translations of Greek texts. In short, he appears to have been thoroughly immersed in his tradition. If what comes through his writing is Orthodox, it may cause us to ask interesting questions about what that mean about his tradition; or we can close it down by using the misleading labels which helped create the original problem - or so it would appear.

It might be noted in this context that the Greek translation of Part 1 of St. Isaac's work - i.e. the part that is known through the Philokalia - replaces the names of Theodore and Diodore with those of Orthodox writers - according to +Hilarion; a reason, if one takes a simplistic view of these matters, to suspect there could be an ulterior motive in saying that 'history' isn't that important. A more nuanced and complex historical argument would not start from that point, but would note, as of interest, the changing of the names of the 'heretics'.

So, let us go to XXXIX/7 of part II of the Works of St. Isaac, pages 165-166, where we read:

Lest any of those who zealously imagine that they are being zealous for the cause of truth should imagine that we are introducing something novel of our own accord, things of which our former Orthodox fathers never spoke, as though we were bursting with an opinion which did not accord with truth, anyone who likes can turn to the writings of the Blessed Interpreter [Theodore of Mopsuestia], a man who had his sufficient fill of the gifts of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures, enabling him to instruct on the path to truth the whole community of the Church; who above all, has illuminated us Orientals with wisdom - nor is our mind's vision capable enough to bear the brilliancy of his compositions, inspired by his divine Spirit. For we are not rejecting his words - far from it! Rather, we accept him like one of the Apostles, and anyone who opposes his words, introduces doubt into his interpretations, or shows hesitation at his words, such a person we hold alien to the community of the Church and someone who is erring from the truth

Now, I do not presume to know which of your Nestorian labels (if any) one might apply to this stout defence of a man condemned by the Chalcedonians, and how one squares his anathema to those who condemn Theodore with the oft-repeated wish that St. Isaac is Orthodox. Indeed, for those of us less attached to labels, this raises more questions with interesting implications than closing the debate down - but I was asked to find some evidence from St. Isaac suggesting he was 'Nestorian'; since the label is not mine, I don't know if such a stout defence of someone condemned by an Ecumenical Council counts.

The position outlined in my last post seems still germane - that we look for questions about the paradoxes rather than deny them; for, as this passage shows - they are there.

In Christ,

John

Herman Blaydoe

20-04-2007, 12:16 AM

My brain hurts!

This is so very far above my simple mind. Stick a fork in me, I'm done!

John Charmley

20-04-2007, 12:28 AM

Dear Herman,

Your brain hurts! I'd trade you headaches!

Matthew wrote
As I've said rather at length before, it is not a matter of great concern to me that St Isaac may have indeed written authentically Nestorian things, and even been genuinely Nestorian (whatever that is taken to mean). But I would feel more comfortable actually knowing these, rather than simply assuming and, being entirely in agreement with the general thrust of this, I tried to comply with the perfectly reasonable request.

Indeed, if one reads on through Chapter XXXIX there are many references to Theodore and Diodore - far more than I can cite.

My own view aligns with that of Matthew, and I have never made an issue of the label; it interests me, if at all, in so far as it is part of the broader paradox contained in the following from earlier:

If we are not careful we will end up against that hard question of whether we attempt to limit God's compassion. An interpretation of the Body of Christ that includes St. Isaac and his 'Nestorianism' asks us complex questions

Those questions are the ones it seems worth getting the old headaches tablets out for.

Have an aspirin for me!

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-04-2007, 01:17 AM

Dear Matthew, Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Peter,

I am uncertain, given Fr, Raphael's interesting comments, quite what it would even mean to call St. Isaac a Nestorian in a way that made him an heretical Nestorian, instead of one of the other sort; especially since it was the EO Church which first used this label, which has never been accepted by the Church of the East; it gets close to 'when did you stop beating your wife?' And since the EO Church also has the useful label of 'non heretical Nestorian' which it can decide to use if it wants to, the utility of the exercise seems even less than I had at first imagined - especially since I can find no one outside the EO Church who appears to think this really matters.

Still, since this is a Chalcedonian forum, that matters, and the following can be gleaned.

The label appears to have been applied post 533 after the 5th Ecumenical Council, following its condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia - who St. Isaac calls 'the Blessed Interpreter'. The Persian Church, which had no connection with Nestorius found itself labelled Nestorian nonetheless; it has never accepted that this is other than a slander on its reputation; it would seem that those who think it should apply to them ought to explain why, and what they mean by it.

A local council of the east syrian Church in 585 confirmed the authority of Theodore, forbidding anyone 'in open or in secret to defame this Doctor of the Church or to refute his holy books; councils in 596 and 605 confirmed this view. It was only later that the teachings of Nestorius, as expressed in the so-called Bazaar of Heraclides were added to those of Theodore and Diodore of Tarsus, as one of the 'three teachers' of the east syrian Church. Its Christology, and what depended upon that, seems to have been shaped by these three - all of whom were, I think, condemned by the Chalcedonian Church.

It may, of course, be that despite his reverence for Theodore, and his membership of a Church that looked to the other 'teachers', Isaac the Syrian was entirely in accord with Chalcedonian Christology; to say it must have been so because the Eastern Orthodox Church has said so, rather closes down some of the interesting questions which we must needs follow if we keep open the possibility of the paradox that might otherwise emerge.

One line opens up some suggestive questions of its own. In Syriac the word qnoma which is used to translate 'hypostasis' carried the meaning of the individual expression of kyana or nature; Syriac writers, according to +Hilarion (to whom due acknowledgement must be made),
Such a linguistic confusion, of course, can be shown to have occurred elsewhere.

However, as + Hilarion also says, for the Syrians, Chalcedon was The Bishop observes that if one takes the trouble to actually understand what the Syrians believed (as opposed to sticking labels on them which represented what the EO Church believed they believed) then
Its theologians used the language of Theodore and Diodore - which the Church had condemned; it was only natural that the EO Church should have labelled the Persian Church 'Nestorian'. After the end of the 7th century the Persian Church was effectively cut off from Chalcedonian influence.

Dr. Brock points out that there is no evidence that St. Isaac knew Greek; all his references are either to Syriac sources, in particular Theodore, or to Syriac translations of Greek texts. In short, he appears to have been thoroughly immersed in his tradition. If what comes through his writing is Orthodox, it may cause us to ask interesting questions about what that mean about his tradition; or we can close it down by using the misleading labels which helped create the original problem - or so it would appear.

It might be noted in this context that the Greek translation of Part 1 of St. Isaac's work - i.e. the part that is known through the Philokalia - replaces the names of Theodore and Diodore with those of Orthodox writers - according to +Hilarion; a reason, if one takes a simplistic view of these matters, to suspect there could be an ulterior motive in saying that 'history' isn't that important. A more nuanced and complex historical argument would not start from that point, but would note, as of interest, the changing of the names of the 'heretics'.

So, let us go to XXXIX/7 of part II of the Works of St. Isaac, pages 165-166, where we read:

Now, I do not presume to know which of your Nestorian labels (if any) one might apply to this stout defence of a man condemned by the Chalcedonians, and how one squares his anathema to those who condemn Theodore with the oft-repeated wish that St. Isaac is Orthodox. Indeed, for those of us less attached to labels, this raises more questions with interesting implications than closing the debate down - but I was asked to find some evidence from St. Isaac suggesting he was 'Nestorian'; since the label is not mine, I don't know if such a stout defence of someone condemned by an Ecumenical Council counts.

The position outlined in my last post seems still germane - that we look for questions about the paradoxes rather than deny them; for, as this passage shows - they are there.

In Christ,

John

I do not think it correct to connect the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia by us with St Isaac's veneration or respect for him.

These two are distinct things which need to be assessed in their own light.

Also the following quote does not show that St Isaac is a Nestorian heretic:

Lest any of those who zealously imagine that they are being zealous for the cause of truth should imagine that we are introducing something novel of our own accord, things of which our former Orthodox fathers never spoke, as though we were bursting with an opinion which did not accord with truth, anyone who likes can turn to the writings of the Blessed Interpreter [Theodore of Mopsuestia], a man who had his sufficient fill of the gifts of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures, enabling him to instruct on the path to truth the whole community of the Church; who above all, has illuminated us Orientals with wisdom - nor is our mind's vision capable enough to bear the brilliancy of his compositions, inspired by his divine Spirit. For we are not rejecting his words - far from it! Rather, we accept him like one of the Apostles, and anyone who opposes his words, introduces doubt into his interpretations, or shows hesitation at his words, such a person we hold alien to the community of the Church and someone who is erring from the truth.

Nor does any apparent removal of names (which again is an argument that needs demonstrating and evidence not just a statement to that effect) show that St Isaac is a heretic. Rather if this really occurred it shows that the new compilers were concerned for the faithful that they not be scandalized when reading St Isaac by association with those who had been condemned.

Again I think we need to stop a moment here and think soberly. Do we honestly think that Orthodox compilers or translators would have presented to the faithful a genuinely heretical work and hope to get away with this by the removal of the more suspect names?

If we follow this line of thought then why wasn't St Isaac himself automatically condemned rather than accepted? If a work is heretical it is heretical in content, not by association, for the Church does not judge in this way.

This is why the evidence of St Isaac is found in the actual intent and focus of his writings. The very fact of names being deleted in itself points to this fact unless we believe those who removed the names were doing this for a dishonest purpose: ie to hide the actual intent of the work. In any case that this is not so is shown by the fact that while some compiler(s) may have removed names others did not since Theodore's name very clearly appears in these versions (which points to an inherent weakness in any argument that deletion of names automatically implies a problem in the work from which they were removed).

Nowadays we constantly read these versions with names included such as Theodore of Mopsuestia and others condemned such as Evagrius. And in the whole spectrum of Orthodoxy there is no one I have heard of who afterwards said that these gave evidence of anything heretical.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

20-04-2007, 08:37 AM

Dear Father

The Fifth Ecumencal council seems to have St Isaac firmly within its scope when it says:

If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, ....., and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.

I have no doubt that St Isaac is a saint, but I equally have no doubt that he was outside the bounds of visible Eastern Orthodoxy, and even more, he positively comes under this anathema. It seems to me to be impossible to suggest that he is not.

Peter

John Charmley

20-04-2007, 09:17 AM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

There seems to be a kind of defensiveness in your position for which, if there is, there is no need.

If you doubt the word of an Orthodox bishop (it was from +Hilarion I had the information about the omission of the names) then I am unsure what authority you would accept; but here we come up against your view of history.

I suspect we come at this with such different purposes that we neither of us quite sees what the other is trying to do; these things happen.

The sort of history about which I have been writing would approach what might seem a major contradiction which would have the polemicists digging trenches: 'there, St. Isaac admired people you condemned', 'well, no, that proves nothing', and seek to learn what could be learned from what is in fact a paradox.

If one dislikes the sort of history that it would seem we both dislike, there is an onus, if one can, to suggest how history might be a handmaid rather than a tool of the enemy. My endeavour was to sketch the outlines of such a position. In a history of what it might be to be part of the body of Christ across time, space and cultures, we might begin to extract wisdom and enlightenment from the paradox of St. Isaac.

Not for a moment do I deviate from your view that the Church would not have venerated a heretic. If the historical record shows that some of St. Isaac's most revered authorities were those condemned by an Ecumenical Council, and that his own reverence for them would have been a matter for condemnation from the same source, we don't need to find answers, ingenious or otherwise, convincing or less so; history proceeds better if trenches are abandoned and we attempt to understand that paradox of God's love and the boundaries of the Church.

I am not, nor, as far as I can see is anyone else, trying to 'prove' (whatever that might mean) that St. Isaac was a 'Nestorian heretic' (of either genus); an attempt is being made to explore paradoxes which may have within them the seeds of enlightenment; of course, they may not. As an historian it is the formulation of the questions and their exploration which seems of most interest.

I can perceive a concern lest the faithful might be misled by what might look on the surface a simple contradiction; but one of the reasons we need a Christian history is so that we achieve synthesis between the Faith and the history in which it is partly located, rather than perpetuate a dichotomy.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-04-2007, 03:25 PM

Dear John & Peter,

Actually I completely agree with the point that St Isaac is a perfect example of how if looked at with open eyes much paradox is found within the Church. I also love pursuing these questions and think them very important as they relate to ecclesiology; ie the nature of the Church. I certainly do not intend to say that it is not right to raise these questions, at least not if their intention is not to be destructive to the Church.

One or two practical questions first though before returning to this point.

John- I would need to see Bishop Hilarion's comments for myself to come to a more full agreement or disagreement with them. Just because Bishop Hilarion says something doesn't make it correct or something I need automatically agree with. In any case going back through your post last night to read what it was Bishop Hilarion actually said, I realized I wasn't clear on whether he meant the removal of the offending Nestorian names as a simple statement of fact or as a more interpretive statement of the compiler's intent.

Peter- the quote you provide above:

If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, ....., and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.

I think this gets to the heart of what is most instructive and interesting about this question. If we are agreed that St Isaac was not a heretic (I mean 'heretical' in the sense of a warped theology which the Church has condemned) then it can be a positive and common work for all of us to see how this can be so in the light of quotes like the above. Or John's correctly pointing out that St Isaac does refer positively to Theodore of Mopsuestia.

What I would propose is looking at this question from how St Isaac looks at Evagrius. There are several similarities to the Nestorian question: St Isaac referring in a positive way many times over to someone accused by us of heresy (in this case Origenism); a similar ambiguity as Evagrius also has had his name removed from our texts while being on the other hand revered for his understanding on prayer.

So similarly to how we can pursue the question: how is St Isaac not (or maybe he is) a Nestorian heretic from the evidence? I think a similar and profitable question is how is St Isaac not (or maybe he is) an Origenist heretic from the evidence?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr. Raphael,

There seems to be a kind of defensiveness in your position for which, if there is, there is no need.

If you doubt the word of an Orthodox bishop (it was from +Hilarion I had the information about the omission of the names) then I am unsure what authority you would accept; but here we come up against your view of history.

I suspect we come at this with such different purposes that we neither of us quite sees what the other is trying to do; these things happen.

The sort of history about which I have been writing would approach what might seem a major contradiction which would have the polemicists digging trenches: 'there, St. Isaac admired people you condemned', 'well, no, that proves nothing', and seek to learn what could be learned from what is in fact a paradox.

If one dislikes the sort of history that it would seem we both dislike, there is an onus, if one can, to suggest how history might be a handmaid rather than a tool of the enemy. My endeavour was to sketch the outlines of such a position. In a history of what it might be to be part of the body of Christ across time, space and cultures, we might begin to extract wisdom and enlightenment from the paradox of St. Isaac.

Not for a moment do I deviate from your view that the Church would not have venerated a heretic. If the historical record shows that some of St. Isaac's most revered authorities were those condemned by an Ecumenical Council, and that his own reverence for them would have been a matter for condemnation from the same source, we don't need to find answers, ingenious or otherwise, convincing or less so; history proceeds better if trenches are abandoned and we attempt to understand that paradox of God's love and the boundaries of the Church.

I am not, nor, as far as I can see is anyone else, trying to 'prove' (whatever that might mean) that St. Isaac was a 'Nestorian heretic' (of either genus); an attempt is being made to explore paradoxes which may have within them the seeds of enlightenment; of course, they may not. As an historian it is the formulation of the questions and their exploration which seems of most interest.

I can perceive a concern lest the faithful might be misled by what might look on the surface a simple contradiction; but one of the reasons we need a Christian history is so that we achieve synthesis between the Faith and the history in which it is partly located, rather than perpetuate a dichotomy.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

20-04-2007, 04:05 PM

So similarly to how we can pursue the question: how is St Isaac not (or maybe he is) a Nestorian heretic from the evidence? I think a similar and profitable question is how is St Isaac not (or maybe he is) an Origenist heretic from the evidence?

Dear Father

I am not really well informed enough in regard to St Isaac's use of origenist Sources, though I agree entirely that could also be a useful avenue of study.

But in regards to his support of and admiration of Theodore, I am not sure that *I* would deduce from this that he was a Nestorian heretic, but it does seem to me that Eastern Orthodox - and of course I am not Eastern Orthodox - must both submit to the authority of the 5th ecumenical council and anathemetise him while also venerating him as a saint, as the Eastern Orthodox tradition undoubtedly does.

I do not consider myself bound by that canon, not least because my own Orthodox Church had condemned Theodore 100 years earlier. And although I must look to my own canonical tradition and see whether a similar canon was passed, I think rather, that the Oriental Orthodox are able to venerate St Isaac as a saint, without canonically having to condemn him for his support of Theodore. This certainly removes the problem with the Eastern Orthodox face, but there remains the fact that he was indeed a bishop in a Church which was at least out of communion with the Oriental Orthodox Church.

I rather sense that the Oriental Orthodox have less problem with this situation. It is routine that many saints of the Eastern Orthodox are venerated as saints by the Oriental Orthodox, by bishops as well as lay people. So I do think that Oriental Orthodox ecclesiology is slightly more porous at the edges than some presentations of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology tend to be.

None of this is an answer, the questions remain, but I do sense that it is more of a problem for Eastern Orthodoxy than Oriental Orthodoxy. Even during the worst days of persecution by the Imperial power the Oriental Orthodox never baptised converts from the Melkites (as they were known). I don't think that Oriental Orthodoxy bought completely into a Cyprianic ecclesiology, where everything outside of the Church is darkness.

Indeed from my understanding of history I wonder if in modern times in fact some sections of Eastern Orthodoxy have become more Cyprianic for a variety of reasons, and this is why we have to ask how a saint can be subject to an anathema? In the 19th century, for instance, there were two attempts to unite the Greek and Coptic Orthodox communities in Egypt, both frustrated by Ottoman violence. And the Russians considered some unity with the Ethiopians. And in the medieval period the Armenian Orthodox Church did not consider unity with the West impossible.

So I wonder if the boundaries of the Church have not been more porous in the past, in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and only recently have swung into a phase of greater rigidity. Perhaps it really was less of an issue in the past that St Isaac was from another communion?

That might explain his use and reception in the EO and OO, but it does not remove the difficult anathema against him in the Eastern Orthodox Church due to his approbation of Theodore.

Peter

John Charmley

20-04-2007, 07:00 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Peter,

Two very interesting posts, and I have a sense that we are now moving into an area where we can discuss some of the interesting questions we are all posing; I am grateful to you both - and hope that those who have had a headache may find it was worth while.

Peter proceeds at a rate which I shall have to catch up with - as so often. I am still with the paradoxes we have outlined, but the points about boundaries and porosity are thought-provoking, and we need to take them against the backdrop of the last few posts.

Here, I'd just like to come to some of Fr. Raphael's questions with some information.

Father, you ask
I would need to see Bishop Hilarion's comments for myself to come to a more full agreement or disagreement with them. Just because Bishop Hilarion says something doesn't make it correct or something I need automatically agree with. In any case going back through your post last night to read what it was Bishop Hilarion actually said, I realized I wasn't clear on whether he meant the removal of the offending Nestorian names as a simple statement of fact or as a more interpretive statement of the compiler's intent.
I have them from pages 29 to 31 of his book. He states:
In this translation [of Part I] by Abraham and Patrikios, monks of the Lavra of Saint Sabas in Palestine, quotations from Evagrius were attributed to Gregory Nazianzen, and some homilies and difficult passages were omitted
+Hilarion does not give us sources for this information, but it agrees which what Professor Brock says in his introduction. This is not to say two sources make a definitive answer to your question - but I suspect your own answer is the right one - namely that the monks only changed names to avoid the possibility of confusion among the faithful.

If this last is correct, then the questions it raises are the same as the ones we are considering from other parts of this question: there is nothing heretical in what St. Isaac says. Some might have been misled by the appearance of names against whom anathemas had been pronounced, so the names, but not the content, are altered to avoid scandalising anyone.

Father, you write
If we are agreed that St Isaac was not a heretic (I mean 'heretical' in the sense of a warped theology which the Church has condemned) then it can be a positive and common work for all of us to see how this can be so in the light of quotes like the above.
well, I think we are so agreed. I would read the comments in my last paragraph in this light - they go into the paradox we are discussing.

Your formulation
Actually I completely agree with the point that St Isaac is a perfect example of how if looked at with open eyes much paradox is found within the Church. I also love pursuing these questions and think them very important as they relate to ecclesiology; ie the nature of the Church. I certainly do not intend to say that it is not right to raise these questions, at least not if their intention is not to be destructive to the Church would also be my own. Properly understood, there is nothing in the history which can possibly damage the Church; it is simply that our understanding is often limited.

It is precisely because of this that a history illuminated by the mind of the Church and which, in turn, helps illuminate our minds, ought to be an enterprise we can embark on.

The mystery is there for us all to approach in humility and awe. Christians are part of the body of Christ, there is a Eucharistic and prayer history of which we know but little, and yet which the settled views of the Church actually help embody, and which are, in turn, informed by its Noetic vision. At the same time, its history has been constructed around divisions and discontinuities - a history conceived in secular terms. Yet St. Isaac, steeped as he was in Theodore's work, illuminates Orthodoxy. Like all paradoxes, if we could but approach it aright, we might find lessons therein.

A body of Christ that is broken; is it divided? A Church within whose bounds alone is Truth to be found; what might its boundaries be and how might they be determined? A mankind of fallen nature and darkened intellect; a God of Infinite wisdom and compassion.

It is not so much
how is St Isaac not (or maybe he is) a Nestorian heretic from the evidence? but more, what can these things mean set against the wisdom of the Church?

Peter has provided us with some thought-provoking ideas, which I hope we can pursue as part of what is, I hope, an interesting and informative dialogue.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

20-04-2007, 09:57 PM

Dear Peter,

In respect of your interesting comments about porosity and boundaries, can I offer the following from Professor Brock [from Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Literature as an example of the difficulties that may be encountered in trying to discuss the paradoxes and the boundaries?

In reference to the view that Chalcedon brought the Christological controversies of the 5th century to a 'happy conclusion', a view that was 'accepted as normative by both Greek East and Latin West' he says:
Only a few stubborn Orientals (so this conventional picture would have it) refused to accept the Council's Definition of Faith, whether it be out of ignorance, stupidity, stubbornness, or even separate nationalist aspirations: these people were, on the one side of the theological spectrum, the Nestorians, and at the other end, the Monophysites - heretics both, the former rejecting the Council of Ephesus (431) and believing in two persons in the incarnate Christ, the latter rejecting the Council of Chalcedon and holding that Christ's human nature was swallowed up by the divine nature.

At this point I can sense some hackles arising from those in the Church to which you and I belong. To balance the hackle quotient, I shall go on with what Professor Brock says next:

It need hardly be said that such a picture is an utterly pernicious caricature, whose roots lie in a hostile historiographical tradition which has dominated virtually all text books of Church history from antiquity down to the present day, with the result that the term 'Nestorian Church' has become the standard designation for the ancient oriental Church which in the past called itself 'the Church of the East', but which today prefers a fuller title, 'The Assyrian Church of the East'. Such a designation is not only discourteous to the modern members of this venerable Church but also ... both inappropriate and misleading
which may have some of those of the Chalcedonian tradition reaching for the 'post reply' button.

In citing Professor Brock (and the whole article, 'The Nestorian Church: a lamentable misnomer', is highly relevant to our discussion) I choose this passage to test the boundaries of our discourse here.

A discussion of this kind may, at times, appear to stray into territory which may raise hackles if it is suspected that partisan points are being scored. Since you and I do belong to a different tradition (and I hope people will forgive my use of that word, but if I could find another, I would) it is perhaps needful to stress at this stage that what is being sought is a discussion which has at its heart an exploration of some of the paradoxes mentioned above - not any attempt to import our own position. I know that you share this desire, but from previous experience, I also suspect it might just be necessary to say it out loud, so to speak.

There are times when eirenicism can seem to those attuned to polemic, a particularly pernicious attempt to perform a kind of mental ju-jitsu on one's 'opponent'; I hope that here, it will be seen for what it is, which, not to pre-empt where the discussion may lead, is an expression of a Christian attempt to find the continuities and explore the commonality of a life in Christ.

I do hope so.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

20-04-2007, 10:04 PM

Just some further data on textual and hagiographical material used in other communities than that in which it was created.

A. I was reading one of Severus of Antioch's Cathedral Homilies from the Syriac collection of James of Edessa at the beginning of the 8th century. This was a version of the translation from Greek into Syriac made originally by Paul of Callinice while Severus was still alive.

Homily 77 is the only one to have been preserved entire in the original Greek, as well as the Syriac translations, because all of Severus' writings in Greek were destroyed within the Empire. Now the interesting thing is that this homily was preserved, and used within Eastern Orthodoxy, under the name of St Gregory of Nyssa.

B. I note that the manuscript Vatican Syriac 125 derives from the Coptic Desert monasteries and contains many (56) texts from St Isaac of Nineveh (the Syrian); a letter from Philoxenus; and very interestingly 27 spiritual chapters from John of Dalyatha, another 'Nestorian' monk and hermit.

Clearly these three authors were being used as having a similar spiritual authority, but two of them are 'Nestorian' and are required reading in a Coptic Orthodox monastery.

C. I need to research this, but the Cath. Enc. says that Jacob of Serugh, the great poet and homilist and non-Chalcedonian is of course venerated among my own Oriental Orthodox, but it would seem that the Church of the East (the so called Nestorians) also keep a feast to him, as do the Maronites. Some of his homilies were also used within the Eastern Orthodox tradition under the name of St Ephrem.

D. St David, and the other 10 founding saints of the Georgian Orthodox Church, still venerated universally in the Georgian Orthodox Church, were all Syrian non-Chalcedonians, and of course this makes sense because the Georgian Orthodox Church was non-Chalcedonian for centuries. At the council of Dvin in 506 the Georgians with the Armenians rejected Chalcedon as being semi-Nestorian. All of these founding monks remain important in the Georgian calendar, but all were non-Chalcedonians and are saints of the Oriental Orthodox communion as well.

E. The Empress St Theodora, wife of Justinian, was converted in Alexandria to a vibrant faith in Christ and her spiritual Father was Timothy, the non-Chalcedonian Patriarch. She remained committed to non-Chalcedonianism all her life and provided support and shelter for non-Chalcedonian patriarchs and bishops, as well as ensuring that the Syrian Orthodox episcopal succession was maintained. Yet she is also venerated by the Eastern Orthodox as a saint.

These are just a few instances of cross-communion veneration of figures, and the use of texts in a variety of contexts. I am sure we can discover more.

Peter

Father Serafim

21-04-2007, 02:36 AM

I supposed this forum to be an Orthodox forum but I see that members of the M------ are calling this forum Chalcedonian. I am familiar with Chalcedonian time and the former Persian empire, but as an Orthodox priest I find this very confusing and rather offensive. I am British Orthodox i.e. British born, served my country for many years, my father before in the RHA, converted to Orthodoxy through Met Anthony etc..and am now a priest serving under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in North America. St Isaac is recognized as a saint in the Orthodox Menaion - that is enough for me.

John Charmley

21-04-2007, 10:50 AM

Dear Fserafim,

I am sorry for any offence, since none was intended. It has been our custom here to use the formulation 'Chalcedonian Orthodoxy', which the moderators themselves place in a rubric under the 'reply' pane, when engaging in discussion of historical matters where it aids clarity. Those unfamiliar with scholarly discourse where this happens should rest assured that it is used, as is 'Non-Chalcedonian', only as an aid to discussion.

Your post poses in acute form the topic raised in my last one, namely whether it is possible to carry on this discussion in this forum. This is certainly about 'Chalcedonian Orthodoxy through patristic and monastic study', and, as the high-quality contributions by Fr. Raphael and Matthew Steenberg show, hardly one in which members of another Church are trying to set the agenda.

Are you saying that you, personally, find such discussions not to your liking? Or that you think this is an inappropriate forum in which to carry on such a discussion? I would find it difficult enough, in conscience, to continue with a discussion which caused offence to any single person, although were it one person, one might decline to award a right of individual veto; should it cause offence to many (and it was exactly that fear which prompted my last post) it would, of course, be inconceivable that the dialogue would continue.

Labels exist, and it is their history and utility which is, in part, under discussion here, so there is no need to be coy with the 'M' word; it is a label which has been applied to us in much the way 'Nestorian' has been applied to the Church of the East; in both cases those who have been thus labelled have rejected the attempt by others so to designate them. We are, however, hardly unaware that it is still used. Still, it adds to the interest in the questioning labels, that out of a courteousness which I respect and admire, you choose to use the more 'polite' version. When words which were once used with some freedom are consigned, by the courteous, to the anonymity of asterisks, it marks an interesting stage in the use of such derogatory designations. In a very real way, it actually adds to the sense of the discussion we are having.

Please, Father, be assured no offence was meant, even for a moment; the conventions of scholarly discourse allow such terminology, and I was merely following them.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-04-2007, 04:32 PM

For the record let me say that all along I have been speaking of the mystery of St Isaac as accepted as a saint within the Church that I am a member of.

The whole question of St Isaac loses its force if seen within the focus of 'many churches'. He then becomes an example of how there are in fact no boundaries to the Church. And there really is no mystery to that all.

But this is contrary to my point all along and again the force of the question of St Isaac. This precisely after all is why this is ultimately an ecclesiological question. Otherwise it is only one more 'proof' of how everything is the Church. Which hardly is a mystery or even a question in our day and age. Rather it's only one more demonstration among many in today's world of how an Orthodox ecclesiological understanding is based on hopeless closed-mindedness.

Why not then first say if St Isaac is accepted by the Copts as a saint. And then explain why. I mean for you this would be even more of a mystery than us and by far.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

A body of Christ that is broken; is it divided? A Church within whose bounds alone is Truth to be found; what might its boundaries be and how might they be determined? A mankind of fallen nature and darkened intellect; a God of Infinite wisdom and compassion.

It is not so much but more, what can these things mean set against the wisdom of the Church?

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 04:50 PM

Dear Father

I had assumed that it was well known and had already been mentioned in this thread that St Isaac is indeed a saint among the Oriental Orthodox, and as my previous post describes, one of the manuscripts containing St Isaacs works comes from one of the Coptic Orthodox desert monasteries and also contains material by Philoxenus of Mabbogh, also considered a saint by us, and also by John of Dalyatha, who is understood as also being a 'Nestorian'.

So the question is the same for both EO and OO. How is St Isaac, a 'Nestorian' and a member of the Church of the East, also venerated in our particular communities. My last posts were intended to show that the questions are the same for us both, save that as far as I can see it is the EO who have gone further and anathematised those who commend Theodore of Mopsuestia, as St Isaac undoubtedly does.

Otherwise the case is the same, a Nestorian saint is venerated in Churches which reject his Nestorianism.

I guess I would also want to add that the issue of 'many churches' venerating St Isaac does not logically require anyone to say that there are no boundaries to the Church, it merely makes us ask whether the particular boundaries we have set are always in the right place and in accord with God's activity.

The boundary I mentioned was that set by the 5th ecumenical council of the Eastern Orthodox. This says that anyone who commends Theodore is anathema. St Isaac is clearly outside of this boundary. But he is also clearly inside the boundary set by the Church calendar of those who are considered as being outstanding examples of those who have experienced theosis in the Church. This surely requires some consideration in the EO, as I must consider how he is a saint in the OO, but as I said, I don't believe that the OO has set the same boundary which anathematises anyone who commends Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Peter

John Charmley

21-04-2007, 05:02 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Otherwise it is only one more 'proof' of how everything is the Church. Which hardly is a mystery or even a question in our day and age. Rather it's only one more demonstration among many in today's world of how an Orthodox ecclesiological understanding is based on hopeless closed-mindedness.

I confess to being quite baffled, as I am by the statement
Why not then first say if St Isaac is accepted by the Copts as a saint. And then explain why. I mean for you this would be even more of a mystery than us and by far

Are you prejudging what the answer to the questions we have been asking might be? I do hope not, since my confidence in such a sure and certain conclusion is quite wanting; but I would defer to your feelings on this.

If we are discussing this purely within your own ecclesiology, the relevance of Coptic ecclesiology quite eludes me; although, were we discussing it within the boundaries of the initial discussion, they would, of course, be very relevant - in much the way Peter describes. Any any rate, there is no competition as to which of our non-Nestorian Churches might have most difficulty with a Nestorian saint, surely, since the whole tenor of this discussion was tending towards the view that an exploration of the paradox would, itself, perhaps show that there was, actually, no contradiction at all involved. After all, if Professor Brock is correct in thinking that 'Nestorian' is a 'misnomer', then some of what seemed problematic dissolves - when good historical method is applied to the question; do you not think?

At any rate, I remain in your hands and those of the other moderators. I am perfectly content to pursue a discussion should there be other discussants; I am quite happy to stop if you, or others, feel we have explored this issue as far as is useful under our rubrics.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-04-2007, 05:04 PM

There are times when eirenicism can seem to those attuned to polemic, a particularly pernicious attempt to perform a kind of mental ju-jitsu on one's 'opponent'; I hope that here, it will be seen for what it is, which, not to pre-empt where the discussion may lead, is an expression of a Christian attempt to find the continuities and explore the commonality of a life in Christ.

I do hope so.

Not just to those attuned to polemic. Whether put peacefully or not every point made here as it touches such deep matters still adds up to 'I agree' or 'I disagree' to 'I think that's correct' or 'I don't think that's correct'. There is a sense in which our words do assess others or attempt to lead them in a certain way.

There is also in much of what we write underlying assumptions about the Church. Certainly within the Church there has always been a full spectrum of perspective and opinion. However 'dialogue between communions' is fraught with temptation of another sort as it can take the rug from under one's feet and imply or at least lead to the concern that every time you agree it means that truth is found everywhere and there is not a Church.

This doesn't mean dialogue is wrong- but it does mean there is a tension involved in this sort of interaction which those involved in it do need to acknowledge and let inform their actions.

Otherwise for those who for the sake of charity do allow themselves to be involved in it it really is worse than any 'mental ju-jitsu'. It's more like people on a train together who for the sake of charity make conversation. But meanwhile at the back of the mind of one of the parties on the train is the nagging thought, 'but just where is this train going anyway?'

I really think the only answer to this is for each of us to have as clear an idea as possible of the boundaries set by the church we are part of and then act accordingly. There can be dialogue but this needs to be in strict and self-controlled measure. Otherwise a violation is made through the force of the interaction itself of the very principle that one of the parties holds most dear.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 05:14 PM

Dear Father Raphael

I am quite sure that both you and I have very clear ideas of the boundaries set by the Church and have little to fear from a discussion with each other.

But we are indeed discussing boundaries, and the boundary set clearly by your own communion is that anyone commending Theodore of Mopsuestia is anathema. St Isaac certainly commends Theodore of Mopsuestia repeatedly and holds him in the highest regard and it would therefore appear from the boundaries of your communion is anathema.

How is it then that he is also a saint and what does this teach us?

I am not sure that anyone is saying that there are no boundaries or that what we believe and have been taught is not important, quite the reverse in fact. I am not willing to say such, and I am very committed to the boundaries set by my own communion and the theological tradition I have received, but this is a Chalcedonian forum and so I will refrain from discussing more than fleetingly from my own Orthodox background.

Indeed I am willing to refrain from mentioning my own communion at all if this unsettles you.

But the question remains, how does someone who is anathematised by your communion also receive veneration as a saint, and what does this teach us? Do you not wish to discuss this because you are afraid of what the answer might be? Is that what your train ride allusion refers to? I would not think that we should be afraid of any answers if they are true, and we both believe that our life in the Church is a life of Truth. I am not afraid, and as you say, it is even more incomprehensible that a 'Nestorian' bishop becomes a saint in the Oriental Orthodox communion.

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-04-2007, 05:16 PM

Dear Peter,

But the point of the posts here for the past while has been on the importance of history. If so then surely the very different history between us is of importance and would naturally relate to a saint likely to be seen as Nestorian even more by you than us.

So what St Isaac means for you would be different than for us. Not that it wouldn't be instructive to hear about this difference- that's why I asked about it- but it would be different one would think.

And in complementary ways perhaps there is something to be gained in such a conversation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father

I had assumed that it was well known and had already been mentioned in this thread that St Isaac is indeed a saint among the Oriental Orthodox, and as my previous post describes, one of the manuscripts containing St Isaacs works comes from one of the Coptic Orthodox desert monasteries and also contains material by Philoxenus of Mabbogh, also considered a saint by us, and also by John of Dalyatha, who is understood as also being a 'Nestorian'.

So the question is the same for both EO and OO. How is St Isaac, a 'Nestorian' and a member of the Church of the East, also venerated in our particular communities. My last posts were intended to show that the questions are the same for us both, save that as far as I can see it is the EO who have gone further and anathematised those who commend Theodore of Mopsuestia, as St Isaac undoubtedly does.

Otherwise the case is the same, a Nestorian saint is venerated in Churches which reject his Nestorianism.

I guess I would also want to add that the issue of 'many churches' venerating St Isaac does not logically require anyone to say that there are no boundaries to the Church, it merely makes us ask whether the particular boundaries we have set are always in the right place and in accord with God's activity.

The boundary I mentioned was that set by the 5th ecumenical council of the Eastern Orthodox. This says that anyone who commends Theodore is anathema. St Isaac is clearly outside of this boundary. But he is also clearly inside the boundary set by the Church calendar of those who are considered as being outstanding examples of those who have experienced theosis in the Church. This surely requires some consideration in the EO, as I must consider how he is a saint in the OO, but as I said, I don't believe that the OO has set the same boundary which anathematises anyone who commends Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Peter

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 05:27 PM

Dear Father

I am not at all sure why you should think that the Oriental Orthodox view St Isaac differently to the Eastern Orthodox.

He is a spiritual father of great importance and was widely read in the Desert monasteries, which is where many of the manuscripts of his texts originated.

I can't see that there is any difference in how he is received. There is the same hesitancy to describe him as a Nestorian, but it seems to me he is judged personally on the basis of his spiritual teachings apart from the community in which he is found, or even his personal theological opinions to some extent.

This is indeed how so many other Eastern Orthodox saints are venerated even while formally being found outside the visible boundaries of our Orthodox Church. I would suggest that there is a sense in Oriental Orthodoxy of their being a wider (but certainly not boundless) communion outside of the merely organisational. There is an issue of the 'visible' communion being the boundary in that it depends who is looking and who they are looking at and it can become simply a political tool. But of course there is not a wholly 'invisible' communion either. I sense that the OO are trying to understand what this tension means in the world today in regard to groups such as the EO who we are understanding have preserved the Orthodox Faith outside of communion with our Orthodox Church. There are not easy answers, and some of the questions are the same as are raised here in regard to St Isaac. But I don't want to discuss that wider issue, and I know that you do not either, and this is mentioned here only to show that the questions are not unique to either the EO or the issue of St Isaac.

But...since this is a Chalcedonian forum we restrict ourselves to the question, how is one who is anathema considered a saint by the EO.

I guess that I do not know? is a valid answer, but it would seem to me that denying the validity of the question would be an invalid answer.

Peter

John Charmley

21-04-2007, 05:42 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Peter,

Bravo! An excellent and most instructive dialogue - from which we shall all benefit.

Father, when you write

at the back of the mind of one of the parties on the train is the nagging thought, 'but just where is this train going anyway? - if that is what one party is thinking, and if that party thinks he knows and doesn't like the destination, then I suppose that there would be little profit; but I had little sense of that being so. Neither was there much of a sense of personal opinion being offered bereft of patristic support, nor yet of cross-communal difference intruding; indeed, there seemed rather a determined effort to accept that all those Churches which have saints considered St. Isaac one - and that for all save the Church of the East, that might, on the surface, pose problems.

It was precisely the probing below the superficial which was the purpose of the ongoing discussion. To say
There is a sense in which our words do assess others or attempt to lead them in a certain way is only so if one imagines one knows what that way is going to be; since that would be the very definition of bad history, there seems little need for such fears.

Perhaps if you can say more from within your ecclesiology, if that is where you are most comfortable; it would certainly be of great benefit to the discussion, which, as Peter says, is not intended to end up saying Orthodoxy (any) is 'closed-minded'; why would either Peter or myself wish to come to such a conclusion? Indeed, since we consider ourselves Orthodox in our own Church's definition, it would be very odd of either of us to have any such hidden agenda. I know, from previous discussions here that sometimes people feel there must be one in such discussions - well if there is, it would hardly be that one, would it?

Peter's description of our own ecclesiology is perfectly expressed, and I would only add that, like him, in deference to the rubric of this forum and the sensibilities of the majority here, we have both kept the Copts well out of this - acknowledging that all non-Nestorians might, on the surface, be assumed by those without benefit of good history, to have a problem - but that, of course, is a central part of our discussion.

So, if perhaps you were able to explicate the Chalcedonian position, as Peter has the non-Chalcedonian one, it might help us all.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-04-2007, 05:52 PM

But surely if these boundaries are of importance to each other (not just ours but the others' also) then we will let others speak as to them. Of course the answer we may receive may cause us to scratch our heads such as why St Isaac who quotes Theodore approvingly is not a Nestorian heretic. But then again that's just a demonstration of the fact that there are differences between us to keep in mind. Put it the other way around- there is no way we can get a completely satisfactory answer from each other short of violating something fundamental.

Why I am beginning to speak out here and now is that I think we have begun in the past while in these and other threads to go too far beyond the bounds.

Slowly this leads to more pointed comments from those like Fr Seraphim which as I take it are just trying to say something along the lines of: please respect our space. We know you think differently about these issues; that's the prerogative of the house you are part of. But pursuing an issue beyond a certain point does put pressure on us which you should not so lightly dismiss as forms of close-mindedness.

In my post above I have given a possible suggestion as how to avoid this problem which has arisen before. I really do hope for something positive as I at least do love hearing about Coptic or other forms of Oriental Christianity.

But please can we stop it with bringing other agendas to the forum that basically add up to forcing us to say we are one and altogether?

I don't like that these discussions all seem to lead inevitably to a "Thread Closed" resolution. If we can work more at respecting each others boundaries then I think a fruitful discussion can occur.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I am quite sure that both you and I have very clear ideas of the boundaries set by the Church and have little to fear from a discussion with each other.

But we are indeed discussing boundaries, and the boundary set clearly by your own communion is that anyone commending Theodore of Mopsuestia is anathema. St Isaac certainly commends Theodore of Mopsuestia repeatedly and holds him in the highest regard and it would therefore appear from the boundaries of your communion is anathema.

How is it then that he is also a saint and what does this teach us?

I am not sure that anyone is saying that there are no boundaries or that what we believe and have been taught is not important, quite the reverse in fact. I am not willing to say such, and I am very committed to the boundaries set by my own communion and the theological tradition I have received, but this is a Chalcedonian forum and so I will refrain from discussing more than fleetingly from my own Orthodox background.

Indeed I am willing to refrain from mentioning my own communion at all if this unsettles you.

But the question remains, how does someone who is anathematised by your communion also receive veneration as a saint, and what does this teach us? Do you not wish to discuss this because you are afraid of what the answer might be? Is that what your train ride allusion refers to? I would not think that we should be afraid of any answers if they are true, and we both believe that our life in the Church is a life of Truth. I am not afraid, and as you say, it is even more incomprehensible that a 'Nestorian' bishop becomes a saint in the Oriental Orthodox communion.

Peter

Matthew Panchisin

21-04-2007, 06:03 PM

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I do not see or have any problem whatsoever with Saint Issacc’s status as a Saint in the Church. Stating that we the Eastern Orthodox have a problem with it is not in accordance with how many EO’s see things, it is a presumption that is often repeatedly articulated seemly imposed but not shared. It is not a matter of fact from my perspective. I do not see us as have swung into a phase of greater rigidity, quite the contrary; it seems to me that our O.O. friends have focused in on a very rigid way of perceiving the matter.

In the news recently we have heard about the 76 year old Jewish man professor at Virginia Tech who stood in front of the classroom door and took several bullets to save some of his students. What he wrote with his blood can’t present a problem for the Eastern Orthodox that see that action as very loving. No greater love has a man than to lay down his life ...

Even though he is Jewish some very basic moral principles would tell us that what he did is very honorable or more. Of course digging up some cannon from a council to show that he is a Jew and all Jews or those that read the writings of the Jews are anathema would seem to me to be a mis-application of the cannon to the dismay of some I would think. I do not think it would be well received. Should the thought be by either the one who poses the question or the recipients?

While he (the professor) is not considered a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church his actions do not present a problem for us in seeing his goodness and thinking very highly of him. Indeed all of our perceptions of goodness would be very rigid and limited if we saw a problem or paradox in the basic determination of recognizing right action(s),

In Saint Issacc’s writing we can see that whatever Nestorian views he is sometimes said to have held, if they exist at all he was able to overcome them as he did many other things I'm sure. The professor was also able to overcome a basic human tendency of self preservation; the common denominator is love which can be found in many places.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 06:11 PM

Dear Father

I must say that I am rather bemused as to why you feel that a discussion of the Chalcedonian context in which St Isaac is considered a saint leads to any comment along the lines of 'we are all one'.

I have to say that this preconception tends to say more about your own concerns, which I do not diminish, than about my own. It rather suggests, as has risen here before, that you consider I have an agenda. That does not seem fair, nor does it seem justified from any posts in this thread.

If you do not wish to participate in this thread then that is entirely your own prerogative. And I would be rather shocked if a serious discussion about St Isaac were to be locked simply because questions were being asked which some forum members did not like.

As far as I can see it is entirely within the bounds of the Monachos subject area and rules to ask how Chalcedonians respond to the fact that St Isaac is both venerated as a saint and is also, apparently, liable to an ecumenical anathema for having commended Theodore of Mopsuestia.

I am not asking you to widen any discussion to anything other than this narrow consideration and therefore you need not fear that you are being asked to widen the discussion. And if you find the topic unsettling then of course I would not wish to press you to participate.

But you should not consider that I have an agenda, that would in any case be uncharitable since I do not have. And if this is another area where Eastern Orthodox do not wish to answer questions then I understand that it must be allowed to pass into silence. But that would be sad. I for one am not afraid of questions. The Church suffers no harm from questions, and if I do not speak about my own tradition here it is only because you have already asked that I not do so, and not because I am trying to 'pick on' Eastern Orthodoxy. On the contrary it is clear that Oriental Orthodoxy has to ask the same questions.

But this is a Chalcedonian forum, and so the questions are couched in the Chalcedonian context. Is no one from the EO willing to provide an answer?

Peter

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 06:19 PM

In Saint Issacc’s writing we can see that whatever Nestorian views he is sometimes said to have held, if they exist at all he was able to overcome them as he did many other things I'm sure. The professor was also able to overcome a basic human tendency of self preservation; the common denominator is love which can be found in many places.

Hi Matthew

Thank you for your comments. Would you be willing to say something about the fact that St Isaac seems quite clearly to fall under the anathema of the 5th ecumenical council, which anathematises anyone who commends Theodore of Mopsuestia? John has already posted quotations from St Isaac which do commend Theodore, and he says that he has too many others to quote.

I don't doubt at all the value of St Isaac's writings, and they are found in Coptic Orthodox monasteries, but there is a clear ruling in the 5th council, anyone who commends Theodore is anathema, and St Isaac commends Theodore, but he is also an EO saint.

How can this be? What does it mean?

As regards the Jewish professor, I agree with you entirely about the witness of good in his life and death. But there are other EO who have said that outside of Eastern Orthodoxy there is only delusion and darkness. There are surely not two answers only - outside of formal Eastern Orthodoxy there is only darkness, death and destruction or everyone is OK really. I think this Jewish professor bears witness to something important, though I am not sure what, and do not want to widen this thread beyond St Isaac.

So please, what do you think about the fact that St Isaac is under a formal anathema issued by an ecumenical council?

Peter

John Charmley

21-04-2007, 06:29 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

You write
But please can we stop it with bringing other agendas to the forum that basically add up to forcing us to say we are one and altogether?
but, as my last post clearly stated, that is not my agenda, nor is it Peter's, I am sure. You have mentioned such fears before, but I fear that they are the product of your own imagining, as is the fear that
every time you agree it means that truth is found everywhere and there is not a Church
Here, and not for the first time, you impute motives, and solely in order to avoid any doubt, it is perhaps necessary to say why such motives could not possibly be there.

No one wishes to 'force' anyone to 'say we are one and altogether', and I can't imagine why they would; the Copts have not done a lot of 'forcing' in the last millennium and a half.

Why would faithful members of a Church which regards itself as the Orthodox Church, [i.e. Peter and myself] wish to conclude that there was 'not a Church'?

It does seem that these are fears of your own devising; they are understandable ones, but even were there a hidden Oriental Orthodox agenda here, they would hardly be part of it. As it happens, yet again all I can say is there is nothing here save a desire to engage in discussion so that one might learn more about 'Chalcedonian Orthodoxy through patristic and monastic study'. Of course, if there is a desire to know more about the Coptic ecclesiology, as Peter has said, it can be happily accommodated - but it might be more useful - and more comfortable for you perhaps, to say more about your own ecclesiology and the history of St. Isaac.

I do hope no one takes offence, but since this business of supposed 'hidden agendas' has once more raised its head, it appeared necessary to explain precisely why it is unfounded.

In Christ,

John

Matthew Panchisin

21-04-2007, 06:30 PM

Saint's with God's help struggle to overcome passions, they are not blinded by pernicous heresy. So in Saint Issacc's case we are not saying he is under an anathema (seperation) you are interpreting things that way. The Church says he is an Eastern Orthodox Saint, isolated and often fallen intellectual abilities are not on the same plane.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 06:34 PM

Dear Matthew

Thank you for your post, I do understand and share your view as to the sanctity of St Isaac. He is indeed a saint as far as I and my Orthodox Church are concerned.

But have you compared the two quotations that have been presented?

The one is from St Isaac and commends Theodore of Mopsuestia. If you scroll up a bit you will find it.

The second is from the 5th Ecumencial Council and says that anyone who commends Theodore of Mopsuestia is anathema.

How then do you interpret both St Isaacs commendation of Theodore, and the anathema on those who commend him? In what way was St Isaac isolated, since he was a member of an active Christian community, the Church of the East?

Most interestingly are you suggesting that someone can be part of the Eastern Orthodox while being part of another community?

Peter

John Charmley

21-04-2007, 06:38 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

It may be too late to remind us all that we were trying to explore the uses of history as a handmaid to Faith in showing how these seeming paradoxes may have within them lessons for us all - and how, once properly understood, show there may be no contradictions at all.

I hope not.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

21-04-2007, 09:28 PM

Would you be willing to say something about the fact that St Isaac seems quite clearly to fall under the anathema of the 5th ecumenical council, which anathematises anyone who commends Theodore of Mopsuestia? John has already posted quotations from St Isaac which do commend Theodore, and he says that he has too many others to quote.

Dear Peter,

I'm uncertain why you feel that the condemnation of the fifth ecumenical council, under which umbrella St Isaac might fall, is any more severe an obstacle than the condemnations occasioned by anathemas of the third. In several of your posts you've commented on this; but I cannot see how falling under the condemnation of two canons, rather than one (and especially given that the two deal with various aspects of the same broader theological question), makes any difference to the question of the express and recognised sanctity of one who falls under anathema. If one were, for example, to stop with the third council and ignore the fourth and fifth, the question becomes no easier in the case of St Isaac.

Whence you focus on this? I'm unclear as to its relevance to the question to hand.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 09:41 PM

Dear Matthew

If you would like I could go through all the canons and find every one that St Isaac might fall under. I don't see how that would help since the EO don't seem to want to engage with the problem.

Surely the question is about St Isaac, not about me, and I find it rather odd that no-one wants to actually discuss St Isaac and keeps finding ways of avoiding the point in question by making my asking it problematic. :-)

The question is straightforward and I won't keep asking it. If no Eastern Orthodox wants to answer it then that is fine, I can't make anyone after all, and it is an answer of a sort.

One canon, two canons, three or four. The issue remains. St Isaac is both a saint and under anathema. If I quoted the 5th council rather than the 3rd it was because I know the 5th council quite well in regard to Theodore and it immediately came to mind. Theodore was not condemned at the 3rd council by name and so it does not clearly place St Isaac under anathema as far as I recall.

Are you willing to engage in discussing this issue or is it a dead duck? Is there some other way the issue should be formulated to facilitate discussion?

Best wishes

Peter

M.C. Steenberg

21-04-2007, 09:56 PM

Dear Peter and others,

If you would like I could go through all the canons and find every one that St Isaac might fall under. I don't see how that would help since the EO don't seem to want to engage with the problem.

As ever, this kind of statement serves little positive good. To be honest, I've quite forgotten, at this point in the thread, what you feel 'the problem' to be. In my last post, I raised once again what I consider to be one of the central issues; namely, the question of the witnessed, recognised and acknowledge sanctity of a person who, like St Isaac, falls under canonical anathema. In several posts, you have indicated that this is 'more of a problem' for those who acknowledge the authority of the fifth ecumenical council, with its anathema against those who support Theodore, than it is for those who do not recognise that council. Yet in my last post I pointed out that the general condemnations of Nestorianism, which come out of the third council, force precisely the same questions. I see no way in which subscription to the latter council in any way complicates the issue: the central question, of the relationship of recognisable and acknowledged sanctity to canonical anathema, remains in either case.

Surely the question is about St Isaac, not about me, and I find it rather odd that no-one wants to actually discuss St Isaac and keeps finding ways of avoiding the point in question by making my asking it problematic.

The question is straightforward and I won't keep asking it. If no Eastern Orthodox wants to answer it then that is fine, I can't make anyone after all, and it is an answer of a sort.I'm sorry, but this seems a response entirely ungrounded in previous comments in this thread. I, for one, quite squarely suggested, some while back, that we look more specifically at Isaac's texts, and received fairly critical responses -- and not by 'the EO' as you seem to wish to delineate the discussion -- telling me we should not.

Your definition of 'the problem' is not the only one, and if you are unwilling to hear in other comments a genuine desire to come to grips with the issues surrounding Isaac, simply because they do not perchance agree on the same language of it with you, then there is little room for actual discussion.

One canon, two canons, three or four. The issue remains. St Isaac is both a saint and under anathema. If I quoted the 5th council rather than the 3rd it was because I know the 5th council quite well in regard to Theodore and it immediately came to mind. Theodore was not condemned at the 3rd council by name and so it does not clearly place St Isaac under anathema as far as I recall.I agree entirely with the statement, "One canon, two canons, three or four. The issue remains. St Isaac is both a saint and under anathema." However, your point in several previous posts was that subscription to the fifth ecumenical council's canon of anathematisation of those who follow Theodore makes the issue more difficult than if one does not. I still would like to know why, given that Nestorianism was condemned far earlier. Unless I am missing something you are trying to argue, this suggests to me that the problem is the same regardless.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 10:34 PM

Dear Matthew

The commendation of Theodore of Mopsuestia is not the same as 'Nestorianism'. Certainly the 3rd council condemns Nestorianism but it did not condemn Theodore. It was the 5th council which anathematised those who commended him.

Now it is has not been shown yet that St Isaac taught Nestorianism, but it has been shown that he commends Theodore of Mopsuestia. Therefore the 5the council is particularly important in the issue of his status as someone who is both a saint and under anathema.

If I could find my photocopy of the Acts of Ephesus 449 I would look to see if there was a ruling that those who commended Theodore were under anathema. I do not recall it however. Though Theodore was certainly condemned.

Since this forum is not for the extended discussion of my own Orthodox tradition I am trying to remain focussed on the Chalcedonian context. It is for this reason that the 5th council is important, and the 3rd if you consider St Isaac to teach Nestorianism.

I am rather at a loss to know how to proceed. Quotations from St Isaac have been produced which show that he commends Theodore of Mopsuestia. It has been shown that many others could be produced. The aim is surely not to show that he taught any error in his spiritual writings, and only those materials have been mentioned which show that he definitely did support Theodore and is therefore under anathema.

The 5th council makes the issue very clear. I don't see that we need to work over St Isaac's texts and show that he was or was not a Nestorian. Rather we clearly have the issue that he is both a saint and liable to anathema under the 5th council.

I don't believe that St Isaac was a Nestorian, but then I am not convinced that the Church of the East is Nestorian, even while I may well think that it's Christology is defective. The Church of the East doesn't consider itself Nestorian. I don't find such labels very helpful. So that is why I am not proposing we search St Isaac's texts to answer that question. Rather the simpler one of his being clearly under the anathema of the 5th council. These are different questions. One is very narrow and clear cut - commendation of Theodore. The other is much more fuzzy and is liable to polemical corruption at many points.

If the problem is the same then why is there still no discussion of it?

Peter

Matthew Panchisin

21-04-2007, 11:11 PM

Now it is has not been shown yet that St Isaac taught Nestorianism, but it has been shown that he commends Theodore of Mopsuestia. Therefore the 5the council is particularly important in the issue of his status as someone who is both a saint and under anathema.

Who would know if Saint Isaac changed his mind on his death bed? Where were you Peter and I, and where was the history of his spirit at that time? What is the context relative to the historical time that Saint Issac commends Theodore of Mopsuestia? Are there any references to him changing his mind as men often do? If not, does that mean that good history must presume to go with Saint Issac commends Theodore of Mopsuestia?

If we did not have the full gospel account of say Saint Peter's repentance would the historical study of his life be different than the Churches understandings?

How many anathema's would he have fallen under. If you deny me before men so to will my Father etc. and so on.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

M.C. Steenberg

21-04-2007, 11:31 PM

Dear Peter,

I've re-read through your posts here in an attempt to understand what you genuinely feel to be 'the problem', and why you feel it is in some sense distinct for those who subscribe to the fifth ecumenical council, as opposed to those who do not. Clearly, the canons of the fourth and third councils to not provoke the same condemnation of followers of Theodore as do the canons of the fifth; so (obviously) there is a distinction in this first sense. But if your point in raising this is that somehow there is a distinct question in Orthodoxy, namely that one condemned can be named and venerated as a saint, this is precisely what the whole of this thread has been about -- so I simply do not understand your statements to the effect that no one wishes to talk about it.

But your desire to make this 'more of an issue' for those who follow the fifth ecumenical council than those who do not, seems only to confuse this basic question. Obviously, the specific condemnation under the fifth council does not hold to those who do not recognise its authority; but you have many times in this thread said that the basic question, of recognising the sanctity of one outside the bonds of one's communion, effectively applies also to those who do not recognise the fifth ecumenical council:

the question is the same for both EO and OO. How is St Isaac, a 'Nestorian' and a member of the Church of the East, also venerated in our particular communities. My last posts were intended to show that the questions are the same for us both, save that as far as I can see it is the EO who have gone further and anathematised those who commend Theodore of Mopsuestia, as St Isaac undoubtedly does.

Otherwise the case is the same, a Nestorian saint is venerated in Churches which reject his Nestorianism.

This quotation suggests that the real question is identical; the specific condemnation of the fifth council only clarifies what you suggest is nonetheless equally true a situation at its core for those who do not follow it.

This you in fact make quite explicit:

I do not consider myself bound by that canon, not least because my own Orthodox Church had condemned Theodore 100 years earlier. And although I must look to my own canonical tradition and see whether a similar canon was passed, I think rather, that the Oriental Orthodox are able to venerate St Isaac as a saint, without canonically having to condemn him for his support of Theodore. This certainly removes the problem with the Eastern Orthodox face, but there remains the fact that he was indeed a bishop in a Church which was at least out of communion with the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Again I find myself wondering why you feel that the condemnation of the fifth council transforms the situation. Canonical anathemas essentially define technical qualifications of the breech of communion. Yes, the canons of the fifth ecumenical council do thus apply a breech of communion in this case, which does not effect those who do not recognise the council. But your comment indicates straightforwardly that a breech of communion is nonetheless also true in the case of the oriental communion that does not take recourse to the council. In other words, the specific injunctions leading to the breech are different, perhaps, but the breech is equally true. Hence my previous suggestion that the central issue is not in fact made different by the fifth council. The question remains, how to understand recognised and acknowledged sanctity in one observably outside the communion of the Church?

As you wrote:

On the contrary it is clear that Oriental Orthodoxy has to ask the same questions.

Yes; and this lies behind my confusion at your focus on the fifth council, as if it somehow changed the parameters of the questions at their core. So far as I can discern, this line of approach only confuses the central issue; it does not help clarify it.

Unless I am missing something in your line of reasoning.

In any case, the central issue in this whole discussion remains an engagement with the nature of sanctity vis-a-vis the canonical definitions of the Church's communion. This issue is central however one determines which canonical regula specifically delineate the border beyond which a given individual has passed; the question is, once an individual is recognised as having passed beyond that border, how then to approach and understand a visible, acknowledged sanctity demonstrated in his or her life, with reference to the canonical norms of the Church?

The initial starting-point of this discussion was largely an assumption on all sides that St Isaac was beyond the clear bounds of that established communion, and yet was also and nonetheless understood by most people taking part also to properly rest in his title 'Saint'. Which drives the question deeper -- into the realm of the relationship of the heart, of the person, to the truth revealed by Christ, in Christ, through relation; and how this relates to one's lot in relation to the ecclesiastical environment of his or her life.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

21-04-2007, 11:52 PM

Dear Matthew

I think you are missing something in my reasoning. I would like to discuss how someone who is outside of the communion of the Eastern Orthodox Church can be venerated as a saint.

End of story.

Personally I think the 5th council is useful because it makes it clear that St Isaac was not a lonely Eastern Orthodox in Persia but commended Theodore and therefore seems to formally fall under anathema. But if you disagree then please ignore any reference to the 5th council.

Any other points in any other posts, if found confusing, may also be forgotten.

I will say no more and hope that you will comment on this issue, and this simple issue alone. How is St Isaac venerated as a saint while seemingly under anathema.

Peter

Father David Moser

22-04-2007, 12:14 AM

In all of this talk about councils and canons, something that I think is missed is that canons, particularly those which impose some kind of penalty or excommunication are not "self acting" They must be applied by the Church to a particular person or group. In this case the Church has not applied these canons to St Isaac and excommunicated him, but instead has held him up as someone to emulate for his asceticism. How is this different from someone like St Augustine who is also not held in high esteem for his theological writings (and in fact many of his errors have been rejected by the Church) but who has instead been held up as an example of repentance. In order to understand the true nature of the canons as they apply to any particular person or group one must look at how the Living Church has chosen to apply the canons to that person or group.

I know that this "fuzziness" of the Church has frustrated Peter in the past, however it is the nature of dealing with a living organism rather than simply an organization.

Fr David Moser

Father Serafim

22-04-2007, 01:13 AM

Thank you for Fr David. You have summed it up for me here.

John Charmley

22-04-2007, 01:34 AM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Back in no. 128 I suggested that good history might, as a handmaid to faith, help us to transcend the red herring of who had most to worry about if St. Isaac was a 'Nestorian'. The label is the problem - it may also be the solution. Good history really may have a place - you never know till you try.

It may be worth trying.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

22-04-2007, 08:32 AM

Dear Matthew,

When you write
The initial starting-point of this discussion was largely an assumption on all sides that St Isaac was beyond the clear bounds of that established communion, and yet was also and nonetheless understood by most people taking part also to properly rest in his title 'Saint'. Which drives the question deeper -- into the realm of the relationship of the heart, of the person, to the truth revealed by Christ, in Christ, through relation; and how this relates to one's lot in relation to the ecclesiastical environment of his or her life it gets us back towards the focus we perhaps need.

Fr. David provides a new perspective on this when he writes that canons, particularly those which impose some kind of penalty or
excommunication are not "self acting" They must be applied by the Church to a particular person or group. In this case the Church has not applied these canons to St Isaac and excommunicated him, but instead has held him up as someone to emulate for his asceticism. How is this different from someone like St Augustine who is also not held in high esteem for his theological writings (and in fact many of his errors have been rejected by the Church) but who has instead been held up as an example of repentance since the implication here would be that St. Isaac, 'Nestorian' or not, was not 'beyond the bounds of the Church'.

This has, surely, always been one of the conclusions towards which we have been directed, since we have all accepted the verdict of the mind of the Church that he was a saint. If the answer to the seeming paradox is that the Church decides in its own mind for its own reasons by its own discernment, then there is, indeed, only a seeming contradiction.

It might be helpful if Fr. David could explain a little more about the way in which anathemas work in your Church? The clear implication of a general statement that
If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, ....., and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.
would be that, as it says, 'anyone' who does what is stated is 'anathema'. But if, as Fr. David suggests, this does not mean what it seems to mean, and that the anathema
must be applied by the Church to a particular person or group then we are in an interesting situation which may well move us along in a helpful direction.

It is an interesting line of discussion, and one raised by no one else. The difference between St. Isaac and St. Augustine is too simple to dwell on; the one seemed to stand under the general anathema directed at those who defended Theodore, the other not; but if anathema in the EO tradition are not 'general' but 'specific', then Fr. David has answered his own question; it might be helpful if we can get clarity here. If it is being said that the Church must name specific individuals or groups, and St. Isaac, unless named, does not fall under the 'group' of 'those who ...' then we indeed have an answer, although it would be difficult to reconcile it with your own earlier post (134) where you write what I had also believed
Yes, the canons of the fifth ecumenical council do thus apply a breech of communion in this case.

There are other ways of approaching this, and I am, alas, still sensing that someone out there thinks that I am trying to 'force' someone to the conclusion that the syllogism runs thus: 'St. Isaac was a Nestorian. Your Church says he was a Saint. Your Church condemns Nestorians so what does that tell us? Why that there are no boundaries and there is no Church.' Well, as an example of a false syllogism and bad historical method, that would be hard to beat, and I can only say, again, that is not where this is meant to go - if only because it is not 'meant' to go anywhere but where it goes. It is bad historical method to rule out in advance answers which you don't like.

But if we could get back to the point you make, Matthew, which is the one that is really worth exploring. Simply to argue defensively about ways in which one's own Church has not made a mistake or contradicted itself, misses the central point of the discussion. No one has argued that about the Church - the constant desire to defend as though someone has comes from some reflex action, I would guess. No one has attacked anyone.

It may, as Fr. David suggests, be that one answer lies in what looks like another paradox; anathema seem cast in a general sense at times, but must always be applied specifically, and even if St. Isaac seems to belong to a group who come under the anathema directed at the 'group' who defend Theodore, and even if (and this seems to have been quietly forgotten) he condemned those who attacked Theodore, it is not the case, since the Church has not specifically named him.

It is characteristic of the hegemonic mindset that it often fails to take into account, or take seriously, the views of those outside it. St. Isaac's words about those who condemned Theodore were pretty sharp for him. Perhaps he would not have cared to be 'adopted' by either of our Churches? Or perhaps, he would not have minded, because his understanding of 'the Church' on the noetic level he reached was rather more informed by a Christian understanding of its limits than our own is? It is towards such questions that we might with profit turn - perhaps?

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

22-04-2007, 02:49 PM

Dear Fr David, you wrote:

In all of this talk about councils and canons, something that I think is missed is that canons, particularly those which impose some kind of penalty or excommunication are not "self acting" They must be applied by the Church to a particular person or group.

This raises a number of what are to me interesting issues. Firstly, it is certainly true that canons exists in some sense as a structural framework in their own right; and that they are, concordantly with this, applied to given individuals in specific circumstances. A clear example are the multiple canons that forbid those tonsured as subdeacons from marrying after that tonsure, and which indeed impose deposition or excommunication for those who do. This is a canon that on principle, requires the excommunication of nearly two-thirds of the subdeacons I have known in my life. And yet the canon is not 'enforced' in each of these personal circumstances, even though the wording of the canons themselves are clear in assigning such persons to the group of those to be considered. In other words, the 'general condemnation' of those who are tonsured subdeacons and then marry, is not made a 'personal condemnation' in the case of each individual who does so; but the canon is seen as a normative guide for action, and an ascetical/theological guide for the broader consciousness of the Church, which is brought to bear on each individual in person, as the case requires.

It is possible that there is some means by which the approach also applies in the case of Isaac and the specific canon of the fifth ecumenical council; though I rather suspect that canons involving anathematisation (i.e. the rendering apart of communion and establishment of a delineation of heresy) are of a different frame than those which prescribe excommunication (which is a corrective measure).

In this case the Church has not applied these canons to St Isaac and excommunicated him, but instead has held him up as someone to emulate for his asceticism.

It would be interesting to look further into this. Again, a canon of anthematisation is different from one of excommunication (though it could be suggested that all canons, including those pronouncing anathemas, are meant ultimately as corrective measures; bear in mind, for example, the tradition that states the canons of Nicaea, including the anathematisation contained in its creed, were believed by some to have effectively caused Arius' recantation and repentance).

On a personal level, I consider that a dwelling on the technicalities of which canons carry which force over an individual's actions perhaps wanders into a strangely legalistic approach to canonical mentality. Surely, if all extant canons were held as unbreechable demands in their literality, nearly no one would be in the Church. But this is clearly not what canons are for.

In the case of St Isaac, a few things seem clear and relevant:

He lived in a Church not in communion with the canonical Orthodox Church at the time;
That Church was then, and has since been, branded 'Nestorian' by those outside it;
It is not clear (to me, who have not read all his works, certainly not in Syriac) that Isaac himself thought or wrote material that could be categorised as promoting a kind of dualistic Christology that was at the heart of the theological rejection of Nestorius, and which is what is normally meant by the term 'Nestorianism' -- though it is possible that he may have done so, and there are some scholars who believe that he did;
Isaac's belonging to a communion officially considered 'Nestorian' by the Orthodox Church, and indeed being an ordained cleric within it, certainly place him outside the communion of the Orthodox Church in its technical and visible sense, at the very least on grounds of the condemndation of the teachings of Nestorius at the third ecumenical council;
That if the above did not, the canons of the fifth ecumenical council do.

The above seem fairly clear points, so far as I can gather. Which leaves the situation of St Isaac's reception. As previous posts in this thread have shown, veneration of St Isaac's asceticism and holiness were current outside his own immediate context from a very early date; and this was so in regions that did subscribe to the councils and canons that condemned both Nestorius (and by extension 'Nestorianism'), and 'those who follow Theodore'. Clearly, the reception of his sanctity in the Greek-speaking Church is evidence that, in the minds of those who thus received him, the canons under which he falls in general anathema were not seen as applying to a specific anathema in his case (harking in some sense to Fr David's point).

There seem to me two ways to ponder on this situation. Either one can claim that the position is in some sense illogical and untenable, grounded in what strikes me as an approach to the canons that sees them as purely legal codes rather than guidelines and directives for the preservation of fruitful ascetical life in the Church. As such, Isaac falls under at least one, if not two or more, condemnations, and thus is clearly 'out'; and claims that he is 'in' challenge the very fabric of the Church's canonical framework.

The second is to understand the canons of the Church in the manner that the fathers (and surely the great canonist fathers, e.g. St Nikodemos, Agapius, etc.) articulate them; namely, as 'yardsticks', measures, or guides toward the preservation of ascetical life in the Church -- and more specifically, of healthy ascetical life in the face of deformed or disfigured asceticism that is ultimately death- rather than life-creating. Taken from this view, the canons -- including even the earliest ecumenical canons of, e.g. Nicaea, not to say the apostolic canons -- are understood not simply as legalistic devices established to regulate a kind of official propriety, but as guides set in place to ensure that major challenges to authentic Christian ascetical life do not become engrained or standard within the Church. So canons against the division of the Son's divinity from the Father's, a la Arius, are ultimately designed to preserve Christian asceticism as that rooted in the transfiguration into Christ who is divine consubstantially with the Father. Canons which anathematise the perceived teachings of Nestorius, namely the division of Christ's humanity from his divinity in his incarnate life, are ultimately aimed at preserving an ascetical life in the Church that is built upon the growing relation of 'one and the same' Jesus Christ, a single subject known and encountered in the ascetical struggle.

This seems to me the clear aim of the canons, especially if one focuses on the canonical corpus more broadly, and sees how many of them are explicitly aimed at the preservation of an authentic asceticism, dealing in practicalities, etc. The conciliar canons dealing with ecclesiastical disputes are often read in isolation, to the detriment of their testimony, as it is too easy by such a reading to disassociate them from the ascetical focus of all canonical thought within the Church.

And it in precisely this realm that the question of St Isaac finds real room for clarification. What is so notable in his case is that the Church has, by and large, taken up his witness first and foremost precisely for its testimony to the ascetical life. The canons which condemn a broad realm of theological danger to which he may or may not have subscribed personally, but which do so precisely so as to ensure that by not succumbing to such theological problems one does not fall into a false-asceticism, seem to hold little ground for a 'specific anathematisation' of one whose ascetical life was known throughout the world within a few decades of his death, and appreciated as authentic and true on all sides. Similarly, the condemnation of 'those who commend Theodore', which is ultimately aimed at preventing the furtherance of a theological system understood to lie behind a dualistic Christology and thus promote a warped asceticism, seems to hold little specific ascetical ground in one whose ascetical life was summed up without it.

It seems very clear to me that St Isaac does fall under the purview of such canons; yet the 'challenge' posed by the acknowledgement and recognition of his sanctity seems to stem primarily from a deficient view of the ascetical nature of the canons.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Seraphim (Black)

22-04-2007, 04:00 PM

This raises a number of what are to me interesting issues. Firstly, it is certainly true that canons exists in some sense as a structural framework in their own right; and that they are, concordantly with this, applied to given individuals in specific circumstances. A clear example are the multiple canons that forbid those tonsured as subdeacons from marrying after that tonsure, and which indeed impose deposition or excommunication for those who do. This is a canon that on principle, requires the excommunication of nearly two-thirds of the subdeacons I have known in my life. And yet the canon is not 'enforced' in each of these personal circumstances, even though the wording of the canons themselves are clear in assigning such persons to the group of those to be considered. In other words, the 'general condemnation' of those who are tonsured subdeacons and then marry, is not made a 'personal condemnation' in the case of each individual who does so; but the canon is seen as a normative guide for action, and an ascetical/theological guide for the broader consciousness of the Church, which is brought to bear on each individual in person, as the case requires.

..........

It would be interesting to look further into this. Again, a canon of anthematisation is different from one of excommunication (though it could be suggested that all canons, including those pronouncing anathemas, are meant ultimately as corrective measures...

..........

On a personal level, I consider that a dwelling on the technicalities of which canons carry which force over an individual's actions perhaps wanders into a strangely legalistic approach to canonical mentality. Surely, if all extant canons were held as unbreechable demands in their literality, nearly no one would be in the Church. But this is clearly not what canons are for.

...................

Which leaves the situation of St Isaac's reception. As previous posts in this thread have shown, veneration of St Isaac's asceticism and holiness were current outside his own immediate context from a very early date; and this was so in regions that did subscribe to the councils and canons that condemned both Nestorius (and by extension 'Nestorianism'), and 'those who follow Theodore'. Clearly, the reception of his sanctity in the Greek-speaking Church is evidence that, in the minds of those who thus received him, the canons under which he falls in general anathema were not seen as applying to a specific anathema in his case (harking in some sense to Fr David's point).

....................

The second is to understand the canons of the Church in the manner that the fathers (and surely the great canonist fathers, e.g. St Nikodemos, Agapius, etc.) articulate them; namely, as 'yardsticks', measures, or guides toward the preservation of ascetical life in the Church -- and more specifically, of healthy ascetical life in the face of deformed or disfigured asceticism that is ultimately death- rather than life-creating. Taken from this view, the canons -- including even the earliest ecumenical canons of, e.g. Nicaea, not to say the apostolic canons -- are understood not simply as legalistic devices established to regulate a kind of official propriety, but as guides set in place to ensure that major challenges to authentic Christian ascetical life do not become engrained or standard within the Church. So canons against the division of the Son's divinity from the Father's, a la Arius, are ultimately designed to preserve Christian asceticism as that rooted in the transfiguration into Christ who is divine consubstantially with the Father. Canons which anathematise the perceived teachings of Nestorius, namely the division of Christ's humanity from his divinity in his incarnate life, are ultimately aimed at preserving an ascetical life in the Church that is built upon the growing relation of 'one and the same' Jesus Christ, a single subject known and encountered in the ascetical struggle.

This seems to me the clear aim of the canons, especially if one focuses on the canonical corpus more broadly, and sees how many of them are explicitly aimed at the preservation of an authentic asceticism, dealing in practicalities, etc. The conciliar canons dealing with ecclesiastical disputes are often read in isolation, to the detriment of their testimony, as it is too easy by such a reading to disassociate them from the ascetical focus of all canonical thought within the Church.

And it in precisely this realm that the question of St Isaac finds real room for clarification. What is so notable in his case is that the Church has, by and large, taken up his witness first and foremost precisely for its testimony to the ascetical life. The canons which condemn a broad realm of theological danger to which he may or may not have subscribed personally, but which do so precisely so as to ensure that by not succumbing to such theological problems one does not fall into a false-asceticism, seem to hold little ground for a 'specific anathematisation' of one whose ascetical life was known throughout the world within a few decades of his death, and appreciated as authentic and true on all sides. Similarly, the condemnation of 'those who commend Theodore', which is ultimately aimed at preventing the furtherance of a theological system understood to lie behind a dualistic Christology and thus promote a warped asceticism, seems to hold little specific ascetical ground in one whose ascetical life was summed up without it.

It seems very clear to me that St Isaac does fall under the purview of such canons; yet the 'challenge' posed by the acknowledgement and recognition of his sanctity seems to stem primarily from a deficient view of the ascetical nature of the canons.

INXC, Matthew

Dear Fathers, Matthew, Peter, Paul et al.,

Hristos a Inviat!

Please forgive my intrusion into this very fine debate, which has been extremely interesting and for which I have been grateful, i) for the careful approach that all have proceeded with, ii) and the tender charity that has been demonstrated.

I feel that I can in a sense reword Matthew's very intuitive words and insight above by repeating a 'word' that Fr. Sophrony gave to me regarding what I was to read in my monastic cell.

I have as so many generations of monastics before me loved deeply St. Issac the Syrian.

Why is this?

The 'word' Fr. Sophrony gave to me, was this:

"Read only that which inspires you to pray".

Fr. Sophrony himself deeply loved St. Issac of Syria.

When under obedience I went to the Holy Mountain, my heart felt moved to settle at the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita, whose Elder and Abbot, Archimandrite Vasilieos, was and is a great lover of St. Issac of Syria.

In the same manner that Fr. Sophrony could not cease speaking of Staretz Silouan and the grace of the Holy Spirit which was manifest in his person and words, so, also, Abbot Vasilieos (who entered the Holy Mountain at a very young age, and went directly into the forest to be a hermit) could not cease in his homilies or his weekly Sunday synaxis' to us, to pour forth praise upon praise of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the 'breath' of the words of St. Issac of Syria.

Herein, I see manifest the humility and intuition of Sts. Nikodemos and Agapius.

Herein, I also see manifest the spiritual testimony of St. Silouan the Athonite as described by Fr. Sophrony:

'In the vast sea which is the life of the Church, the true tradition of the Spirit flows like a thin pure stream, and he who would be in this stream must renounce argument. When anything of self is introduced the waters no longer run clear, for God's supreme wisdom and truth are the opposite of human wisdom and truth. Such renunciation appears intolerable, insane even, to the self-willed, but the man who is not afraid to "become a fool" [cf. I Cor. 3:18-19] has found true life and true wisdom.'

(St. Silouan the Athonite, Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), p. 87)

Forgive me. I do pray these poor reflections of mine can in some manner be included in this discussion.

Adevarat a Inviat!

faithfully,

fr. seraphim

John Charmley

22-04-2007, 06:15 PM

Dear Fr. Seraphim, Dear Matthew,

Thank you both for two exceedingly interesting and thoughtful posts, which do, indeed, move us on in an instructive way.

Far from your words being either 'poor' or an 'intrusion', Father, they take us to an important place which I suspect we all have in common. One of my concerns in pondering what a 'Christian history' might look like, was that what passes for Church history so often concentrates upon what divides us; it makes for more 'exciting' reading, I suppose, and is certainly dramatic. But it is misleading at the level you describe and can cause dismay among the faithful.

To want a history of the Eucharistic life and the life of prayer which Christians have had in the shadow of the Cross, is not to want a shallow ecumenism, but rather to help us understand what it has meant, and does mean, for Christians to see themselves as resident aliens in societies which have taken a variety of approaches to them. The ascetical life, which originates for us all in Egypt, but which becomes one of the main modes of living the life in Christ, is one of the great witnesses to Him. So when you tell us, Father that
Fr. Sophrony could not cease speaking of Staretz Silouan and the grace of the Holy Spirit which was manifest in his person and words, so, also, Abbot Vasilieos (who entered the Holy Mountain at a very young age, and went directly into the forest to be a hermit) could not cease in his homilies or his weekly Sunday synaxis' to us, to pour forth praise upon praise of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the 'breath' of the words of St. Issac of Syria you give us access to what such a 'Christian' history might be and become. It would describe and illuminate 'the true tradition of the Spirit [which] flows like a thin pure stream' - and in turn be illuminated by it. It encourages me to think that a Christian history may, indeed be possible.

And of course, Matthew, you are correct to suggest to us that one of the outcomes of the discussion thus far is to force us away from narrow legalism towards a more nuanced and helpful understanding of the canons and the ways in which the Church employs them; had nothing else come from this, that alone would have been another contribution to a 'Christian history'.

I am encouraged, not only because of the characteristics which Fr. Seraphim has noted in this discussion - and for which I am indebted to my fellow discussants here - but because it seems to suggest that if Christians (as opposed to the usual array of secularists) approach their own history in a prayerful and humble manner, they can, together, find illumination. As we move on, we see how feeble and poor the sort of mindset that would see in 'St. Isaac: a Nestorian?' anything that would confound the understanding of the faithful. Viewed aright, history is indeed proving a handmaid to the faith.

Fr. Seraphim, you have moved us into the reality of a glimpse of what it has meant to be a Christian in the life of Christ; Matthew, you have provided us with a nuanced and helpful way of beginning a true understanding of how the wisdom of the mind of the Church operates. We have all provided examples of how we can get a little on the defensive if we feel certain buttons are being pressed, and yet, I would hope (and am bold enough to assert) that we have all provided an example of how Christians can help to create a truly 'Christian history' that deals with the truly important continuities in the ascetic and Eucharistic life; not as a contribution to any polemical modern agenda, but as an aid to guarding us all against that sort of thing.

My thanks to you all - I have learnt, and continue (with delight) to learn more. If, as I hope we can, we agree with Matthew that revising a
deficient view of the ascetical nature of the canons
may provide a resolution of the seeming paradox of a 'Nestorian' saint in an Orthodox Church, then might it be possible that there is also evidence of a 'deficient understanding' in the nature of some of the labels? It is, after all, as Matthew observes, by no means clear that St. Isaac's Christology was heretical. I have a little more work to do on this last point, but at worst, so to say, it seems to have been the classic Antiochene position expressed in the famous Formula of Reunion - which, of course, was accepted by St. Cyril and not at all 'Nestorian'. Indeed, I am reading an interesting paper at the moment which suggests that reading Theodore of Mopsuetia as such may have been the result of a 'deficient understanding'.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

22-04-2007, 08:03 PM

Dear all,

Yes, the question of the 'labels' on takes up and applies in theological and historical discussion (e.g. 'Nestorian', 'Arian') have deeply problematic aspects. In a recent thread on the question (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3167), it became clear rather quickly that these aspects are not, however, simply cases of deficient methodology that can be corrected by shining a light on the flaw; there is also considerable difference that yet remains in the approach to what labels mean, and therefore how they are used, and consequently what is a 'fair' or 'unfair' label, what is useful what is not, etc.

With regard to the question of St Isaac, I am more than ever convinced that the problem comes from the general tendency to 'read' the Church as a kind of intellectual project, rather than engage with it as ascetical endeavour. As I attempted to show in my last post, via what I hope was a direct engagement with what Peter delineated as the main question at issue, when the Church's canonical apparatus is approached as ascetical tool, the situation is far less problematic -- and this without dismissing or belittling the reality of the canonical situation. (Interestingly, this ascetical focus also aids in understand the application of canons, e.g., against Origen, the bulk of whose theology was widely approved of by the Church, yet whose speculative elements rendered it ascetically problematic - and indeed raised the issue of leading even Origen himself into heretical proclamation on various points.)

I have written at some length elsewhere that I believe 'Nestorianism', for example, is a widely misused label, but that having a label called 'Nestorianism' remains helpful, if it can be engaged with properly. And the only way for that engagement to happen is to see the very category of theological labels from an ascetical perspective. Else they simply become ideological or territorial markers, which serve little end.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

22-04-2007, 11:28 PM

The initial starting-point of this discussion was largely an assumption on all sides that St Isaac was beyond the clear bounds of that established communion, and yet was also and nonetheless understood by most people taking part also to properly rest in his title 'Saint'. Which drives the question deeper -- into the realm of the relationship of the heart, of the person, to the truth revealed by Christ, in Christ, through relation; and how this relates to one's lot in relation to the ecclesiastical environment of his or her life.

INXC, Matthew

It is through the monastic tradition of our church that St Isaac was accepted as a saint due not just to the obvious sanctity found in his writings. Rather in his writings there is a kind of sanctity so rarely encountered which takes one beyond this realm to the noetic. And from reading his writings it becomes clear that most of all St Isaac lived in that world beyond. In other words while here he was already there.

This is crucial to the question at hand for first we have to begin with the person of St Isaac and what was seen in him by those monastics of our church who first read him. Similar to St Dionysios the Areopagite, all other questions become secondary. What endures is a uniquely angelic sanctity which leads one to see that St Isaac is beyond the prescription of any anathemas or canons because he fulfills and reveals to us the intent of them all.

The most important evidence of how St Isaac was received is found within present day monasticism as a living tradition in unbroken communion since the time of St Anthony, the Desert monastics of Egypt of the Holy Land and beyond. This monastic tradition in which asceticism and theology go hand in hand (praxis and theoria) was already well developed by the time of St Isaac. So by the time it received his writings it recognized in them a voice in accord with and which indeed fulfilled the deepest aspirations of their own tradition.

And to this day present day monastics also see St Isaac in this way. As then so today it is largely through the monastic community that St Isaac is made known to the rest of the Church. This is because to make known within the Church refers to a way of life unique to the Church, the resurrected & deified life in Christ, and this again is what St Isaac so powerfully represents- a way of life which the Church recognizes as representing its own ideal and that to such an incredible degree.

Thus without in any way denigrating or neglecting the canonical rule of the Church the monastic tradition sees in St Isaac such a fulfillment of its own aspirations that in this saint few of the prescriptive categories we are so used to apply. This is not to say his sanctity somehow takes one beyond the Church – far from it. But every time we read St Isaac as we encounter his sanctity we move more deeply into the mystery of where and what the Church is. Simply put there is no system of categories that we can fit St Isaac into beyond his own extreme sanctity without falling into multiple pitfalls.

A last note because it is so serious. For monasticism at least, St Isaac as St Isaac the person is the ultimate criterion of his Orthodoxy. We must keep this in mind because he is as a person so unique that to this time so many centuries later the Church has not found anyone like him outside Her own bounds. He is the sign of how in Christ all things will be fulfilled.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 10:30 AM

Dear Father Raphael

I must agree wholeheartedly with you about the immense value of St Isaac which transcends categories in the way you describe.

But are you also suggesting that he is the only figure who is venerated in the EO who was not formally a member of the EO? I have mentioned the founding saints of the Georgian Orthodox Church, who were all Syrian 'monophysites', yet are still central figures in the Georgian calendar.

Did you mean that St Isaac is the only such extra-ecclesial saint, or that among such exytra-ecclesial saints he stands rather uniquely because of his importance?

Peter

Tim Grass

23-04-2007, 10:36 AM

Dear Peter,

I'm curious what you think about Matthew' response to your main question..... up above one or two posts. Since you were so emphatic about it, I'm curious what your reaction is.......

--tim

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 10:47 AM

Hi Tim

With regard to Matthew's post, I probably agree with much of it. I cannot in honesty say that the EO approach to history and labels is usually perceived as ascetic. It seems to me, as someone who is not EO, that it tends to be polemic and political. Indeed I have been told by EO that it does not matter what I believe since I have been 'labelled' in a particular way. This does not seem an ascetic approach, which would have as its end the salvation of someone considered outside of a communion.

But I do believe that the ascetic approach could be used.

I don't believe that the real meat of this issue is being touched however, and I am certainly not going to keep on flogging a dead horse. :-) I have raised the fact of other non-Chalcedonian saints venerated in the EO, they are not of the spiritual stature as St Isaac but they are also venerated, indeed they would have certainly rejected Chalcedon completely and anathematised all who followed that council, believing that it led to Nestorianism, yet they are venerated by the Georgian Church. I find this interesting and stimulating, but if no one else does then I will drift back into fitful lurkdom. :-)

Peter

Tim Grass

23-04-2007, 10:49 AM

Well, that's a shame. But oh well.........

--tim

John

23-04-2007, 11:07 AM

Well, that's a shame. But oh well.........

--tim

I agree, Tim. Peter, I'm sorry you've already made up your mind about these things. You spent such energy saying no one would engage with what feel the real questions are, then someone does, and you dismiss it as not being what you think the EO believe or say. But the question of people under condemnation *is* being addressed, even though in your last post you say it still isn't.

I'm sorry, but I find this attitude very discouraging. Based off some of your earlier posts, I'd expected more from you than this kind of refusal to discuss things fairly.

For those who are interested in discussing the topic, I would like to hear more about the canons and condemnation, and asceticsm. The ascetical purpose of the Church Canons is how we have been taught in our parish to understand them. I hadn't thought about St. Isaac this way before (not that I'd thought much about him!)

Yours,
John

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 11:17 AM

Dear John

I have not made my mind up at all on these things. That was the point of wanting to discuss them.

I hesitate however to push things where others do not wish to go. I am not Chalcedonian, and this is a Chalcedonian forum. I am not able to express myself clearly in this context because it would offend.

Peter

Athanasius Abdullah

23-04-2007, 11:40 AM

Dear John,

If I am interpreting Peter correctly, it would seem that contrary to what is being implied, he is not simply dismissing Professor Steenberg's response ad hoc, but is rather opining that whilst the response seems to satisfactorily address the situation of St. Isaac, it fails to address the predicament posed by other figures condemned by the EO communion who do not share those peculiar characteristics of St. Isaac which Professor Steenberg's response took into special consideration.

Additionally, Peter seems to be saying that whilst the "ascetic approach" to the issue is being propounded as reflective of the EO approach, such an approach does not in fact seem to be reflective of that taken by various EO laity and heirarchs to concrete situations in which such an approach bears relevance. This is not a cop-out, it is simply an observation of how certain EO laity and heirarchs have actually dismissed considering the prospects of recognising various figures that she perceived to be outside of her communion, by virtue of polemical labels being attached to them by the EO communion throughout history. The question is essentially one of idealism vs. practicality--which I guess is a separate question, but one which Professor Steenberg's response provokes nevertheless.

In XC
Athanasius

M.C. Steenberg

23-04-2007, 12:17 PM

Dear Mourad,

With thanks for your recent note (above). On principle I would rather think the same approach the forms the contours of how I understand the canons and their specific address in the case of St Isaac, would be the same in the case of others. Which other individuals are you thinking of, that demonstrate the kind of dichotomy you suggest? In your message, you write of:

the predicament posed by other figures condemned by the EO communion who do not share those peculiar characteristics of St. Isaac

Since I do not know which concrete examples you have in mind, I cannot speak in specifics; but in principle the very nature of the canons as ascetical tools would shape responses based on precisely the ascetical / salvific potential in the subject being treated. So if one does not share 'those peculiar characteristics of St. Isaac' -- namely, being ascetically profitable -- then the situation might warrant a different response than that given him.

I'm most curious to know of one or two concrete examples of individuals you have in mind, so I can get a better feel for the point you are trying to make.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 12:25 PM

Dear Matthew

I have mentioned the founding fathers of the Georgian Church.

Here is an example among several :

The life of Saint David, founder of the David-Garejeli monastery in Eastern Georgia, belongs to the cycle of biographies known as The Lives of the Syrian Fathers, most of which were composed by the Catholicos Arsenius II of Georgia (c. 955-80). To these Syrian Fathers is ascribed the introduction of monastic institutions into Georgia. The historical background of their mission has been the subject of considerable discussion, especially as their biographies, in their present form, were not composed until four centuries after their deaths, with the result that facts are overlaid with legend and myth.

The approximate date of the Syrian Fathers' mission to Georgia can, however, be established by references to real personages and events. Thus, the life of St. David of Garesja mentions the Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem (494-513). Lives of the twelve other Syrian Fathers refer to a visit to St. Simeon Stylites the Younger (521-97), who is described as sitting in an oven, which he is known to have done between the years 541 and 551. There is also a reference to the Persian king Khusraus’s siege of Edessa, which took place in 544. The Georgian chronicle known as The Conversion of Georgia says that the Syrian Fathers arrived some two hundred ears after St. Nino’s apostolate. These allusions combine to show that the Syrian Fathers arrived, or were traditionally supposed to have arrived in the Caucasus at various times between the end of the 5th and the middle of the 6th centuries.

While the Syrian Fathers are revered among the fathers of the Orthodox Georgian Church there can be no doubt that they belonged to the Monophysite persuasion, as did Peter the Iberian, whose life we have read in the last chapter. Syria was a great centre of opposition to the edicts of the Council of Chalcedon. We have already seen with what vigour the Emperor Marcian (450-57) persecuted those who refused to accept the Chalcedonian formulation of the doctrine of Christ’s two natures. After a period of respite under Zeno and Anastasius, there was a fresh outburst of persecution between the years 520 and 545 under Justin I and Justinian. Contemporary analysts give a lurid picture of the excesses committed by the Byzantine authorities against the Syrian clergy and monks, many of whom were forced to flee abroad.

We also have to bear in mind that at the period under review the Georgian Church was itself sympathetic to the Monophysite cause. At the Council of Dvin in 506, the Armenian Georgian and Albano-Caucasian Churches united in condemning the dogma laid down at Chalcedon. Not until a century later did the Georgian Catholicos Kyrion formally reject the Armenian Gregorian doctrine and bring his flock back for ever within the Orthodox fold.

When we recall that the Syrian Fathers arrived in Georgia at a time when Monophysite monks expelled from Syria were taking refuge abroad, and that the Georgian Church was then on the Monophysite side, we must conclude that the Syrian Fathers were indeed Monophysite refugees anxious to continue their religious work in the more tolerant and congenial atmosphere of Georgia.

Peter

M.C. Steenberg

23-04-2007, 12:28 PM

Peter, what book is that excerpt from?

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 12:32 PM

It is from a book of Georgian saints by a Georgian Orthodox Christian and a professor of Georgian at SOAS.

They add further in regard to St Peter the Iberian, truly an important non-Chalcedonian figure.

With the life and career of Peter the Iberian (c. 409-488), we emerge from the local traditions of the Georgian Church into the wider arena of Byzantine religious and political affairs. During the events surrounding the Council of Chalcedon,, held in the year 451, Peter stood out as champion of the Monophysite or anti-Chalcedonian cause, denying the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ as formulated at that Council. While the orthodox Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem indignantly refers to Peter as that putrefaction from Georgia, with his barbarous mind, the Syrian, Coptic and Armenian Churches, which also refused to accept the dogma of Chalcedon, regard Peter as an eminent saint and ascetic. Peter's native Georgian Church has tried to gloss over his doctrinal deviations.

Born the son of a Christian king of Georgia, Peter renounced his royal lineage for an ascetic life in the Holy Land. His biography provides valuable material for the history of the Christian Orient during the 5th century, since Peter was personally acquainted with many prominent personalities of the time, including the Emperor Theodosius II and his consort Eudocia, St. Melania the Younger, and the famous Patriarchs Nestorius, Juvenal, Proterius of Alexandria and Timothy the Cat, and has handed down vivid reminiscences of them. Furthermore, the late Professor Ernest Honigmann sought to identify Peter the Iberian as author of the important mystical writings purporting to have been composed by the Apostle Paul's contemporary', Dionysius the Areopagite. This theory has aroused considerable discussion in recent years, but has not found general acceptance.

Peter's life has come clown to us in two versions. First there is the biography originally written in Greek by Peter's disciple John Rufus soon after the saint's death. Of this, we now have only the Syriac translation, in a manuscript dating from the 8th century. Another biography, preserved in a Georgian version, apparently derives at third-hand from the lost Greek life of Peter by Zacharias Rhetor, bishop of Mitylene, and in its present form is not older than the 13th century. This Georgian text has been much distorted by its pious redactors, who wanted to present the heretic Peter as an impeccably Orthodox saint.

M.C. Steenberg

23-04-2007, 12:34 PM

With thanks for the source.

I would also be curious: what precisely is your question regarding these figures? Do you see their reception in the Georgian Church as somehow of a different category than that of St Isaac elsewhere?

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question on this situation.

INXC, Matthew

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 12:49 PM

Dear Matthew

I must say that I am also confused by the fact that the question in my mind is not being communicated.

In what way do you consider that St Peter the Iberian, one of the great champions of non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy is venerated as a saint in the Chalcedonian communion? Are you saying that it is again due to an ascetical approach to the canons, which is a reasonable answer?

I would have to then ask why someone who followed St Peter's faith should be condemned?

If he is received as being a member of the Eastern Orthodox, even while he repudiated that communion, because of his faith, then why are those who share his faith outside of the Church?

Likewise the Georgian fathers. If the ascetical approach extends to them, though they formally repudiated Chalcedon, then why does it not extend elsewhere, if it is the 'inner faith and life' which is what is being recognised?

This is what I am finding confusing. In this very thread a participant has been offended that I, as a 'monophysite' am even allowed to post, yet the Eastern Orthodox venerate a 'monophysite' champion. It seems reasonable for me to ask where that leaves someone like me? How do I get to share in this ascetical approach to the canons?

I don't speak about Chalcedon and Chalcedonians in the 'vigorous' manner that St Peter the Iberian does, and I have a copy of some of his writings buried somewhere on my desk, but he is 'in' and I am 'out'. I guess I am trying to understand how the discernment of the Eastern Orthodox Church works in practice, because it is not clear at all.

I have been told repeatedly over the last 15 years that it is not at all possible for anyone to be Orthodox who does not formally describe Chalcedon as ecumenical, even if they materially accept the substance of Chalcedon, but St Peter is very polemical towards Chalcedon, yet he is considered an Eastern Orthodox saint. This is why it is difficult to understand what you mean by an ascetical approach, it seems to refer only to difficult cases.

Peter

M.C. Steenberg

23-04-2007, 03:53 PM

Dear Peter,

As I understand from your last post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44603&postcount=157), the question you ask there, namely:

In what way do you consider that St Peter the Iberian, one of the great champions of non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy is venerated as a saint in the Chalcedonian communion?

Is the same as the question you previously asked (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44521&postcount=114) with regard to St Isaac:

How is St Isaac, a 'Nestorian' and a member of the Church of the East, also venerated in our particular communities.And more explicitly here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44525&postcount=117):

But the question remains, how does someone who is anathematised by your communion also receive veneration as a saint, and what does this teach us?I find myself unable to distinguish any change in the basic question you are asking, which is how one under the ban of a canon might nonetheless be commemorated as a saint (as you specifically frame it). You grew quite frustrated when you felt no one was addressing your question, which is what prompted me to write my earlier response (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=44563&postcount=140), with regard to the question of St Isaac and canonical condemnations, etc., in direct response to it. Your subsequent posts have now brought up others -- the Georgian saints you mentioned, as well as Peter of Iberia -- but the question you are asking, at least as you have framed it in your most recent post, remains unchanged.

To that same question, I am not sure what else I can offer beyond my previous comments, which I hope get right to the heart of the matter (and it would be interesting to know your thoughts on them, which you haven't as yet offered). I don't mean this to dismiss your ongoing questions; but I cannot see how I would reply differently to the situation of David of David-Garejeli, or Peter the Iberian (the latter of whom I know only a little; the former nearly nothing). Their persons are different, but the issue seems constant.

You write:

Are you saying that it is again due to an ascetical approach to the canons, which is a reasonable answer?Indeed, as this is the nature of canons qua canons; not simply as regimental legal codes, but guides toward righteous living within the Church.

I would have to then ask why someone who followed St Peter's faith should be condemned?This is perhaps too leading a question. There are all manner of people of who 'followed St Peter's faith', who received conciliar condemnation, not least because 'following St Peter's faith' is an amorphous description.

To place the matter in positive terms, the canons exist to promote the right-living-out of the Christian life of the faithful in the Church; or, as L. Patsavos put it, 'to assist her in organizing herself, in overseeing the orthodoxy of her members'. This is what I earlier called the 'ascetical nature' of the canons, namely, that they exist to promote, foster and encourage a proper living-out of the Christian calling in the Church, a right ascetical struggle, in the face of the many possibilities of a false or destructive living out of the life. There are countless ways to 'follow St Peter's faith', and the early period of the Church's life in particular showed the degree to which variations could be damaging. The canons are the means of guiding one in a right ascetical life in the Church.

So far as I can gather, this is the standard reading of the great canonists (Nikodemos, Agapius, Makrakis, Zonaras, Balsamon, etc). Zonaras describes the function of canons thus:
"They ... like so many straight and right rules, rid men in holy orders, clergymen and laymen, of disorder and obliquity of manners, and cause them to have normality and equality of ecclesiastical and Christian condition and virtue."
The very existence and naming of the later collection and codification of the various canons as the 'Pedalion', or 'rudder' which guides a ship in a right journey, emphasises this in modern times.

As I attempted to spell out in my previous post, canons thus exist which condemn specific approaches to the living-out of this life in the Church, whether in theological or practical terms; not simply as jurisdictional affairs, but in order to foster a right living-out of the faith within the Church. Whether specific canons, which as instructions on a proper ascetical life in the Church apply generally and broadly, are specifically brought to bear economically on a given individual is something applied precisely on those grounds: economically, personally.

This seems rather clear in the case of Isaac, who, as you brought up, seems to fall under the clear ban of the fifth ecumenical council vis-a-vis support of Theodore, which that council took to be connected to the theological issue of a dualistic Christology, a la 'Nestorianism'. In your most recent examples, i.e. David and Peter, the context that strikes you is of their having been anti-Chalcedon, rather than specifically breaking a particular canon of a given council. But here the same basic logic of response still applies -- and it becomes more important than ever to understand the nature of canons as tools regulating life in the Church. As such, it is obvious and reasonable that canons meant to regulate healthy life in the Church will condemn breeches from the Church; and, as such, post-Chalcedonian canons will of course condemn the act of rejecting Chalcedon, as an act of rejecting part of the Church whose life the canons exist to further.

In some sense, the point of the canons is not to attempt definition of how sanctity might exist outside the Church; canons exist to foster life within it, and to ensure the life lived in the Church is the authentic life in Christ as the Church has received it. That sanctity can exist outside the earthly bounds of the Church is a given, if one reads the scripture as far as the testimony of Melchizadek or the Centurion who encountered Christ; but the canons exist to foster right life within, not without.

Examples of lives transfigured in Christ, which also simultaneously examples of lives lived beyond the canonically-defined limits of Church life, are traditionally commended in the Church (a la St Isaac, the Georgian martyrs, etc.), whilst maintaining nonetheless the canonical condemnation of a general situation which they may have transcended in their person. There are individuals whose lives of holiness are profitable for instruction and veneration, despite other aspects of those lives which might be ascetically / ecclesiologically condemnable in canonical terms. This the Church has always acknowledged - even as far back as the apostles (e.g. it is canonically condemned to deny the Lord, especially in public and for reasons of persecution, but Peter does so, and yet is venerated); but this acknowledgement is met with caution, given that the ascetical focus of canons condemning, e.g. Nestorianism, remain proper even if individuals falling under the title 'Nestorian' might have much to teach. In St Isaac's case, this is clearly what the Church has done since very soon after his death: accepted the sanctity of an obviously transfigured life, while maintaining the canonical condemnation of the broader context in which that life was lived.

Likewise the Georgian fathers. If the ascetical approach extends to them, though they formally repudiated Chalcedon, then why does it not extend elsewhere, if it is the 'inner faith and life' which is what is being recognised?Asceticism is not properly understood simply as 'inner faith and life', but, in its fullest sense, the life of interior struggle within the Body of Christ that is the Church. If it were simply a matter of interior faith, there would be no point in any delineation of Church order and ascetical orientation in its fuller sense. This is precisely why acknowledgement of sanctity outside the bounds of strict canonicity does not cause one to dismiss the canons; why it is necessary to thank God that lives lived outside the guides for healthy Christian life may still, by God's grace, be taken up into mercy, and yet focus all the more on living within the guidelines (canons) received and given.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-04-2007, 04:23 PM

Dear Peter,

I am very pressed for time right now so I cannot compare my brief thoughts about your question with the posts which follow your question (ie I may have changed or refined my thought if I had an opportunity to read what was written). In any case, as I had already given this a bit of thought when you posted about such saints a few days ago, I will say the following.

Wherever such saints are found in our calendars or lives of saints they are presented either through direct evidence which can include written and oral tradition, by implication, or even by silence, as saints who in fact did repose within the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church.

Only with St Isaac, at least as far as I can presently recall, is no effort made to do this.

As I say I'm under time constraints right now. So I do not have time to go into all the implications of the first point.

But certainly it means something, at least to us, that little to no effort has been made to interpret St Isaac in the more traditional or expected way. He is as I posted previously seen by our church in a very unique way.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father Raphael

I must agree wholeheartedly with you about the immense value of St Isaac which transcends categories in the way you describe.

But are you also suggesting that he is the only figure who is venerated in the EO who was not formally a member of the EO? I have mentioned the founding saints of the Georgian Orthodox Church, who were all Syrian 'monophysites', yet are still central figures in the Georgian calendar.

Did you mean that St Isaac is the only such extra-ecclesial saint, or that among such exytra-ecclesial saints he stands rather uniquely because of his importance?

Peter

John

23-04-2007, 05:54 PM

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the these two most recent messages.

I have found them very helpful.

Yours,
John

Nina

23-04-2007, 06:12 PM

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the these two most recent messages.

I have found them very helpful.

Yours,
John

Yes, I agree!
Thank you because I found many answers. Especially about asceticism because the other night I was talking with some non-Christian friends, who wanted to know more about it and our faith. I think that what Matthew says here was lacking from my explanations to them and it is very essential. I will tell this next time and of course quote Matthew. :)

John Charmley

23-04-2007, 06:58 PM

Dear Peter, Dear Matthew,

I suspect that Matthew has provided the answer to Peter's question, however many examples are thrown up of seeming 'exceptions', when he says
the canon is seen as a normative guide for action, and an ascetical/theological guide for the broader consciousness of the Church, which is brought to bear on each individual in person, as the case requires.

and later reiterates that
On principle I would rather think the same approach the forms the contours of how I understand the canons and their specific address in the case of St Isaac, would be the same in the case of others

I am not certain this is exactly the same point as Fr. Raphael makes when he writes:

Wherever such saints are found in our calendars or lives of saints they are presented either through direct evidence which can include written and oral tradition, by implication, or even by silence, as saints who in fact did repose within the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church but this formulation at least helps explain some of the frustrations evident in some of Peter's posts.

It is a defining characteristic of a hegemonic cultural discourse that it operates in relation to other cultures in a way the latter find eclectic and the former finds perfectly natural. It will, characteristically, take from other cultures what it finds relevant to its own, but using its own criteria; from outside the hegemonic culture this can appear to resemble the situation described by Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland where, you may recall the following dialogue between Alice and Humpty Dumpty:

I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

and if we are not careful in our configuration of the discourse here, we shall end up looking as though we are partaking in such a discussion; and I trust we are not.

What is perhaps needful is an explication of how and why the canons are read in such a way, for that would tell us something of the way the mind of the Church works, and would, perhaps, also relate to the theme of what it is to be part of the body of Christ - which is, of course, both visible and invisible as that relates to the Church.

I think Fr. Seraphim (Black) may have provided us with a useful reminder of a way we might go, and one that fits with Matthew's helpful emphasis upon the right-living of the ascetical life. The ancient monasteries of Egypt which can trace a continuous line back to the very origins of monasticism, are the living embodiment of what the Copts mean by a right-living ascetical life - as, of course, are those of the Holy Mountain. If we would know what it can mean to be a Christian across time and out of it, and where whatever boundaries are set by the ascetical life might be, then it is to such places of continuity and Eucharistic life that we must look for our examples.

Continuities is no euphemism for syncretism, but rather a suggestion that those who have tried to live their life in Christ have something that they have communicated and do communicate to us, within, and perhaps beyond, any formalistic reading of canons.

(Mind you, a canon that would see most sub-deacons under condemnation might be thought a little lacking in utility in the form it currently takes?)

Hoping this will help us forward a little.

In Christ,

John

Father Serafim

23-04-2007, 07:07 PM

It is interesting for me personally that Peter the Iberian is brought up as an example of a monophysite saint in the Georgian Church. One of our Georgian parishioners suggested that we should commemorate Peter at the end the Liturgy. I did not know of his origins and when I asked other Georgian members of the parish, they immediately replied that Peter was a heretic and had caused great problems for Georgian Orthodoxy. I subsequently now commemorate St Nina - Enlightener of Georgia

Matthew Panchisin

23-04-2007, 07:13 PM

Dear Peter,

Quotation:
I guess I am trying to understand how the discernment of the Eastern Orthodox Church works in practice, because it is not clear at all.

The Eastern Orthodox Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils has discerned that Saint Issacc’s intentions had not been to bare false witness, that he struggled greatly and that his glorification is a gift that comes down from above. The Eastern Orthodox Church is not a blind guide or confused by such things.

I think if a monk or even the laity rejected him after reading his graced writings via the canonical standard it would be detrimental to the spiritual lives of many. What a sad state we would be in if we rejected that gift. We would be going the broad way if in our ascetical struggles we could not see that Saint Issacc’s way was narrow and difficult and that it leads to life.

Be at peace on this one, the Eastern Orthodox, the Copts and the Assyrian Church of the East are not straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Those Coptic monks are very pious, they know a lot, such as it is not wise to even try to bite a camel.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 07:17 PM

Dear Father

I find that a little odd since the Georgian text clearly ends...

Our blessed father and bishop Peter died on the 1st of December, as Sunday was about to dawn, on the third day of the commemoration of Peter, the great martyr and archbishop of Alexandria, and five months after the passing of Father Isaiah the ascetic. And a year later, on the day before the commemoration feast of Father Peter, we reinterred his body in the crypt beneath the altar of the monastery church. The span of his life on earth was about eighty years. We celebrate his memory during three days: the first being the anniversary of the translation of his relies to the crypt beneath the altar, the second, that of the assembly of the people, and the third, the day of his burial in the earth and his committal into the hands of Christ Jesus, our Lord, God over all things, to whom be praise, honor and power to all eternity, AMEN.

This makes it more confusing since it would then seem that though St Peter was against Chalcedon he was received as a saint by the Georgian Church, and yet now appears to have been repudiated by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The process of accepting someone outside of Eastern Orthodoxy as a saint is therefore harder for me to understand.

It is interesting that the official Georgian Orthodox website counts the beginning of that Church before Nicaea and states that..

A fact of participation of Stratophilous, the Bishop of Bichvinta in the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea does not leave any doubt that Christianity was spread and the Church first appeared in East Georgia in the first half of the IV century.

It is since that time that Georgia and its Holy Church have steadily followed the path of Christianity unconquerably preserving the orthodox teachings. Procopius of Caesarea, a Byzantian historian of the VI century says, that Iberians “are Christians and they obey the rules of the faith much better than any of those whom we know”.

which would indicate that they consider that they were Orthodox throughout the centuries when they were non-Chalcedonian, which may perhaps have something to say about why they accept[ed] St Peter the Iberian as a saint.

I am trying to find an official list of saints venerated by the modern Georgian Church now.

Peter

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 07:22 PM

Ah.. I see that the official Georgian Orthodox Church website says..

Number of theologians, philosophers, writers and translators whose names are well known to the Christian world, were conducting their activities in Georgia and outside of the country in various periods. They are Petre Iberi (Peter the Iberian), Ephrem Mtsire (Ephraim the Lesser), Ekvtime (Euthymius) and Giorgi Mtatsmindeli (George of Athos), Ioane Petritsi (John of Petritsoni) and others.

This suggests strongly that the authors of the official website count St Peter the Iberian among other leading church fathers of Georgia.

Peter

John Charmley

23-04-2007, 07:38 PM

Dear Peter,

At the risk of overlapping with Matthew Steenberg saying that he has explained how this can be, I suspect he has. But, as you say, it is the process by which this happens, and what it may tell us about the nature of boundaries and the Church which is the more interesting and important theme - unless we invoke what might be called 'the Humpty Dumpty clause' on behalf of our own Church.

The how and the why will help take us forward into understanding what it tells us that one Church can 'read' a holy and ascetic figure from what might seem to be an anathematised communion, and in a process which can span centuries, find within him those things which appertain to a right-guided ascetical life in the shadow of the Cross.

The processes by which this happens may well be part of the continuities, and not, as might seem, a simple process of saying that things mean what one Church wants them to mean when it chooses to want them to mean that. Again, good historical method draws us away from the polemical and divisive towards the understanding of what such seeming paradoxes might, if understood aright, tell us.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 08:10 PM

Another interesting example of what is being discussed in this thread is St Shushanik, a Georgian martyr who died in 482 when the Georgian Church was non-Chaledonian, and therefore as a non-Chalcedonian she is venerated by the Armenian Orthodox Church.

But she is most definitely venerated by the Georgian Orthodox Church today as well. Indeed St Shushanik is in the calendar of the diocese of Sourozh.

Now I think this is an interesting instance because St Shushanik left no spiritual teachings, she was and is commemorated as a brave woman and queen who held fast to her (non-Chalcedonian) faith and was martyred. So why would she be venerated when countless other female non-Chalcedonian martyrs who had the same faith are considered as being outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Also I am not sure that the historical process which led to St Peter the Iberian becoming venerated in Georgia has been considered here, and it seems to me that we must consider the historical process though it is not the whole story. We know that it was not until the Syriac/Greek 'non-Chalcedonian' life reached Georgia and was translated into Georgian with very heavy editing that the life became suitable for a Georgian, and now Chalcedonian, context. This was not until the 13th century. I guess my question in this regard is what other information the Georgian redactor(s) had in the 13th century? They had a poor copy of his life, but the only other material we have presently is the Plerophories, which is a collection of visions, prophecies and anecdotes told by St Peter the Iberian to John Rufus his disciple and successor as bishop of Maiuma. They are almost entirely of a strongly anti-Chalcedonian slant and so I will not reproduce any of his visions or prophecies here. But we don't know any other material which they could have used. So why did they take an anti-Chalcedonian life of an anti-Chalcedonian champion who has not left us a corpus of spiritual teachings as has St Isaac, and make of him a Georgian saint? I can think of several reasons and processes, but what is your opinion?

Peter

Tim Grass

23-04-2007, 08:30 PM

Hi Peter,

Rather than just put out more names, it would be interesting to hear you engage with what has been said in respnose to your questions and the examples you already gave.... about the nature of canonical boundries, focus, and so on.

--tim

Peter Farrington

23-04-2007, 09:16 PM

Hi Tim

I really am trying to engage, and I have suggested that I am not completely convinced with the idea that all of these non-Chalcedonians can be brought into the Eastern Orthodox communion by a particular use of the canons.

Of course the canons are applied within the Church in an ascetical manner, but I have not seen any evidence that this is how they are used in regard to those outside the Church, especially those who never showed any sign in their life that they wished to be Eastern Orthodox, and indeed would have condemned the Eastern Orthodox Church, so I find this approach in regard to these figures problematic.

Indeed there are modern Eastern Orthodox theologians who condemn such an approach in regard to baptism, for instance, and who insist that the limits of an ascetical approach are broken when something that is not a baptism is treated as if it were. If this is what traditionalist Eastern Orthodox complain in regard to those who are at least seeking to become Eastern Orthodox I would be very interested in their view on receiving those as saints who spent their life condemning Chalcedon and Chalcedonianism. I say this because it is problematic for me in understanding what is truly the EO position, my own views are different.

So I am not convinced, not least because I have seen no historical evidence that this process of reception in an ascetical approach has taken place. The example of St Peter, and the other Georgian saints seems to suggest something else.

What of my own personal views about the boundaries of the Church. I will answer here this once because you ask and because I do not want to seem to avoid your questions, but forum policies do not permit me to elaborate. Ithink that I am taught to believe that while the Church is not something invisible, nor is it something which has no boundaries, it is not the case that those boundaries are simply and always coterminous with the visible organisation of the Church as it appears to men. This is how I understand that the Eastern Orthodox can also be the Orthodox Church, not because of any false branch theory, indeed the Oriental Orthodox Church does not need to be united to any other community to become the Church, as far as I believe it is already the Church. But it is possible for me to believe, as I am taught, that in separation from us, in human terms, the Eastern Orthodox have also been granted to preserve the life of the Church outside of a visible communion for 1400 years. Not a branch theory, but an appreciation that the Church is not exactly delimited by the Oriental Orthodox communion, and in an imperfect manner, because not in accordance with the will of God, the same life of the Church has been preserved in our two communities even though in human terms there has been division. Others have asked why I feel the need to be united to the Eastern Orthodox, in personal terms of course I do not, I am convinced that the fulness of the Church is found in the Oriental Orthodox communion, but because I believe that the prayer of Christ, 'that they be one' must be fulfilled in my/our lives if we are to reach the world with the Gospel. Therefore understanding that we are still divided in human terms I do not believe that we are two Churches but the One Church, and this is why when Eastern Orthodox convert to the Oriental Orthodox communion, and especially in my own British Orthodox Church, we insist that we cannot offer them some other sacrament because they are already Christian.

So in a real sense I am taught to accept that nearly all of those venerated in the EO are truly saints and worthy of veneration. For me, the issue is rather with Roman Catholic figures who seem to bear witness to a genuine sanctity, and again to St Isaac, who is in a similar situation as a member of the Church of the East. Since many of the Eastern Orthodox saints will have condemned my own Church I have to consider that what is taken into account in their veneration in my own Church is whether or not they were materially heretical, as it were, and I think this applies to St Isaac. But I don't sense that we would want to suggest that these figures were crypto-Oriental Orthodox, rather that the boundaries of the Church extend as far as them in some sense. St Seraphim of Sarov, for instance, is not an Oriental Orthodox saint, even if he is venerated by the Oriental Orthodox. He is a Russian Orthodox saint and so in some way the Russian Orthodox must be understood as Orthodox or at least accessible to Orthodoxy rather than that he must be made somehow to be Oriental Orthodox. I guess I am saying that having made such a conclusion about St Seraphim of Sarov I don't sense that I am taught to isolate him from his whole community and condemn them while venerating him.

These are only thoughts, not conclusions.

Peter

Fr Seraphim (Black)

23-04-2007, 09:19 PM

Dear Peter, Dear Matthew,

I think Fr. Seraphim (Black) may have provided us with a useful reminder of a way we might go, and one that fits with Matthew's helpful emphasis upon the right-living of the ascetical life. The ancient monasteries of Egypt which can trace a continuous line back to the very origins of monasticism, are the living embodiment of what the Copts mean by a right-living ascetical life - as, of course, are those of the Holy Mountain. If we would know what it can mean to be a Christian across time and out of it, and where whatever boundaries are set by the ascetical life might be, then it is to such places of continuity and Eucharistic life that we must look for our examples.

(Mind you, a canon that would see most sub-deacons under condemnation might be thought a little lacking in utility in the form it currently takes?)

Hoping this will help us forward a little.

In Christ,

John

Dear Community Members,

Hristos a Inviat!

I do feel very grateful to John for the above statement, as I am more than aware that I move in very rarefied atmosphere amongst this discussion.

I am not a specialist in the Canons, nor in any way a student of the various Christological debates which led the Emperor Marcian to don his referee uniform and announce: "In this corner we have the rash and dogmatic Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius and in the far corner, weighing in at x number of kilos the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, already declared the champ by Pope Celestine..." which lead to the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Thus, allow me to say these few words:

Both Fr. Sophrony and Abbot Vasilieos could quote by memory extensive passages of St. Isaac, at times so much so that in intertwining St. Isaac with their own reflections I felt like St. John Chrysostom was also in the room.

Both were of the same mind that St. Isaac was suitable more for hermits and St. John of the Ladder was for coenobitics.

I, myself, could only with difficulty put St. Isaac down, and begin my Prayer Rule.

Here truly is a Saint who inspires one to pray, fulfilling Fr. Sophrony's precept to me, to read only that which moved one to prayer.

As a simple monk, this is enough for me, or as my neighbours across the Ottawa River in Quebec would say: ca suffit! eh!!

Let us not lose what I feel is the essence of the matter. St. Isaac is a living Staretz, who, if one's heart is attuned, is an Abba who can give that which all monastics seek: a word, a living word which sets the heart on fire with love for the Holy Trinity.

Adevarat a Inviat!

faithfully,

fr. seraphim

John Charmley

23-04-2007, 11:49 PM

Dear Peter, Dear Fr. Seraphim,

I am grateful to you both, and feel we are moving in directions where especial care and charity are required in how we read what we all write.

Fr. Seraphim directs us to part of the great mystery which we cannot hope to understand fully

Let us not lose what I feel is the essence of the matter. St. Isaac is a living Staretz, who, if one's heart is attuned, is an Abba who can give that which all monastics seek: a word, a living word which sets the heart on fire with love for the Holy Trinity
- there is part of the 'thin stream' to which Matthew refers. This is surely a vital part of what it has meant, and what it means, to be a Christian - and any Christian history would have to be informed and illuminated by it.

I hope that people will appreciate Peter's reticence in saying what he said here; it certainly arose out of no desire to avoid any issues, but rather out of a delicacy with regard to the rubric below all our replies. But at least it should put a stop to any suspicion that there is any theory that there is 'no Church'. When he writes
the Oriental Orthodox Church does not need to be united to any other community to become the Church, as far as I believe it is already the Church. But it is possible for me to believe, as I am taught, that in separation from us, in human terms, the Eastern Orthodox have also been granted to preserve the life of the Church outside of a visible communion for 1400 years. Not a branch theory, but an appreciation that the Church is not exactly delimited by the Oriental Orthodox communion, and in an imperfect manner, because not in accordance with the will of God, the same life of the Church has been preserved in our two communities even though in human terms there has been division he touches on something that is also germane to the question of a Christian history.

But it may be that there will be those who feel this is several bridges too far. The paradox of a possible circumscription of God's love along with our beliefs about the nature of the Church can be explored in a number of ways - two of them have been outlined by both of you, and it will be interesting to see whether they contribute to widening the discussion.

In Christ,

John

Tim Grass

24-04-2007, 12:17 AM

I'm aware that it's impossible to say certain things without them sounding confrontational, so I hope I can say this with some sincerity:

I've found some of the last few posts very disappointing. Finally, after plenty of around and about direction, we'd gotten onto some heavy hitting things..... direct discussion about things like the canonical boundaries of the church and saints who are outside them.... discussion about what the canons that make up those boundaries are all about. Good stuff, and important.

But I find the rank dismissal of all this, without even really considering it, disappointing. You (Peter) demanded, over and over, that people address the issue.... and now that people have, you've just dismissed the whole response, saying "you're not convinced" but not actually engaging with any of the real points people have raised. It's not even clear that the earlier posts have been read carefully.... the examples of baptism, or of not seeing "evidence that this is how they are used in regard to those outside the Church" doesn't seem to even acknowledge one of the main thrusts of a recent post, that the Canons *don't deal* with things outside the church.

Even though I know some people will lament that I'm not being fair by saying this, but I just can't see how there isn't some kind of agenda at play. If someone really wants to explore these things to understand them, I would expect them to engage with explanations (or maybe not even so firm as explanations.... sometimes "explorations"). Just dismissing them, without even considering them carefully, to further another set of ideas / thoughts, is actually an agenda..... by definition.

If there really is a wish to explore the Orthodox views on these things (I say "views" because I am very happy to admit more than one......), then maybe a good starting point would be to go back and look at some of the really good posts from the past few days, and actually discuss some of what's been written.

--tim

John Charmley

24-04-2007, 08:02 AM

Dear Tim,

I can understand your disappointment, but we all have to come at these complex questions in our own way, and on these fora it can sometimes seem as though some of the points in one's own well-crafted postings are not being addressed by others; but over time these things sort themselves out, and the issues which people find the most interesting tend to be the ones that end up being discussed - even if they are not the ones that light one's own candle.

That St. Isaac should have become an Orthodox saint through his veneration by the monastics (at least in the first place) is immensely suggestive, since that very tradition originated in Egypt and has been practised continuously there ever since. Examining, as I was the other day, the rule of St. Benedict, one sees, vagaries of time, space and culture notwithstanding, and despite humankind's love of labelling things, some of those continuities which I have been suggesting are at least as worthy of study as the processes of discontinuity. I have no notion of what an understanding of monasticism in that way might do, or even whether it would be possible; just a feeling it would repay our study.

As Matthew commented earlier, labels continue to serve a purpose; but the processes by which they can be set aside when someone recognises they do not serve a larger purpose (which is to do with living the Christian life), are surely worth a little exploration?

I think if we persevere, and bear each with the other's perspectives, we may continue to find some mutual enlightenment; or so it seems to me.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

24-04-2007, 06:15 PM

Dear Michael, Dear Tim,

Are there any specific or particular points you feel would be helpful to start with from what has been said?

Reading through volume 14 of the second series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, which was originally published in 1899, on p. 351 I stumbled across this, which may or may not have some bearing on our discussion, and which, as it comes from a position that is distinctively and self-consciously 'western', may be useful - or not:

The writings of St. John Damascene are certainly deemed entirely orthodox by the Easterns and always have been. On the other hand their entire orthodoxy has never been disputed in the West, but a citation from Damascene is considered by St. Thomas as conclusive. Under these circumstances it seems hard to resist the conclusion that the faith of the East and the West, so far as its official setting forth is concerned, is the same and always has been. And perhaps no better proof of the Western acceptance of the Eastern doctrine concerning the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit can be found than the fact that St. John Damascene has been in recent years raised by the pope for his followers to the rank of a Doctor of the Catholic Church.

That might be another example of the sort of thing that we have been discussing with St. Isaac, or it may be a red herring; but it seems to suggest that within the Roman Catholic tradition there exists a similar working definition of how the canons apply.

What might be worth exploring is whether we have an understanding of how this process works, and how it might link to the light of monasticism. It would seem as though the process is often long and organic, in so far as no one says at any one moment 'here the canons can be interpreted in an ascetical manner, and we can divide the schismatic context from the Orthodox teaching' - even though, in practice, that is what happens. It seems, and perhaps unsurprisingly, not dissimilar to the process by which the early Church came to recognise formally what it had already long recognised formally about the canonicity of scriptural writing. Is that so?

I hope that is thought to engage with whichever parts of an interesting but complex discussion you feel are not being engaged with; it would be interesting to have your views.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

29-04-2007, 02:45 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Reading through this thread again, especially in the light of the interesting comments being made on the 'Divided without division' thread, some enlightenment comes.

One of the questions which was posed by the possible paradox of a 'Nestorian' Orthodox saint (and I here I think Matthew's no. 140 sums it up very well) was the question of what it might have to say about the 'boundaries' of the Church and possible attempts to circumscribe God's love.

Back in post 121 Fr. Raphael wrote:

Why I am beginning to speak out here and now is that I think we have begun in the past while in these and other threads to go too far beyond the bounds.

Slowly this leads to more pointed comments from those like Fr Seraphim which as I take it are just trying to say something along the lines of: please respect our space. We know you think differently about these issues; that's the prerogative of the house you are part of. But pursuing an issue beyond a certain point does put pressure on us which you should not so lightly dismiss as forms of close-mindedness.

And in the light of some of the posts on 'Divided without division' an understanding of this can be had - for those of us from other 'houses'.

In his post 13 on the other thread, Fr. David writes incisively:

It is an absolute Truth that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus do we confess every day when we pray the Nicene Creed. It does not matter where you stand, what perspective you take or how you want to perceive it - this is an unchanging and absolute Truth.
In post 15 on the same thread the point is made pellucidly:

The Orthodox Church has preserved the Apostolic teaching unchanged and without admixture of error throughout the centuries from Christ until now. Only in the Orthodox Church are found the commandments of Christ. Thus if we love Christ, how can we help but live according to the teachings and instructions of the Orthodox Church? And only those who love Him abide in Him and are joined to Him.

In the light of this illumination it is possible, for those of us from other 'houses' to understand better Fr. Raphael's caution to us.

Perhaps that is why these discussions come thus far and no further - since if we each take our own Church to be the one that has 'preserved the Apostolic teaching unchanged', then each of us will see the boundaries in different ways. But since that takes us back to an emphasis on what still divides us, I still wonder whether a Christian history that focuses upon what it has meant to live the ascetical life in Christ in the shadow of the Cross, might not be illumined by the example of St. Isaac?

Perhaps the following from a SCOBA document on approaches to 'ecumenism' might provide a sort of framework for the useful parts of our discussions here?

11. The Confessional principle stresses that Christian unity is grounded and expressed in the unity of the Apostolic Tradition, and that the divisions among Christians, complicated as they might be by “non-theological” (cultural, historical, socio-psychological, etc.) factors, are ultimately rooted in deviations from the one faith. These divisions cannot be healed by compromise or doctrinal minimalism. Differences should be overcome through
reference to the very sources of Revelation in patient and honest study of each particular controversial issue.

I should like to think that that is what we are about here. Is there a way in which St. Isaac's acceptance as a Saint by so many different 'houses' tells us something about the reality of the Christian life across time and space?

In Christ,

John

Matthew Panchisin

29-04-2007, 02:55 PM

Dear John,

That might be another example of the sort of thing that we have been discussing with St. Isaac, or it may be a red herring; but it seems to suggest that within the Roman Catholic tradition there exists a similar working definition of how the canons apply.

What might be worth exploring is whether we have an understanding of how this process works, and how it might link to the light of monasticism.

Within the Latin tradition there most certainly is NOT a similar working definition of how the canons apply. The Latin perspective is very secular and legalistic. Matthew Steenberg has correctly identified and brought to our attention the importance of an ascetical orientation or focus for understanding things, particularly theological matters whether expressed liturgically, in praxis or within theological text.

There is no any one moment so to speak relative to how the canons are to be understood. In the Latin western tradition of these days they are understood in much the same way that has been articulated within this thread via our friends that are recent converts to the Coptic communion. This was not so during the first 700 years or so when the Latin tradition was not removed from the Orthodox Church.

We do have an understanding of how this process works, and how it links to the light of monasticism. It is not a theory but rather a reality lived within the Orthodox Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

For the sake of brevity I will try to comment on the matter of how the process works from a very practical way insofar as how an ascetical orientation is manifest and how a severing from that perspective can really matter in peoples lives.

Firstly, the canons are understood to be interpreted as is Holy writ in the Latin tradition in an exclusive way via the “magisterium” an elite group, such a way is a great fall, since the sovereign there is against himself (correctly understood “man”) via the institutions puffing up of a mere man.

Here is how they see things:

“At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in his see. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which is infallible, he himself is infallible. The episcopal body is infallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which the Church is built.”

Such thinking is an ascetical schism that is also manifest in many other ways. Those notions are utterly removed from an Orthodox ascetical perspective, the Church is not built on elitist humanism, that leads to unchristian understandings seen in terms like the Bishop of Rome being the “successor of Christ,” and that the canons mean what he and the magisterium say they mean. In other words, being above guidance ‘ascetical” and otherwise. It is a great error in the ascetical realm to think that one can’t error or a collective group of men can’t error.

The results of such great institutionalized falls are hurtful to those that follow such paths. If we look at the Latin practice of not allowing those that have failed in a marriage without an annulment that have remarried not being allowed to receive communion in the Latin tradition, we can see that reconciliation is not possible for them in those spaces. Central to the Church’s understanding of herself is the reality of reconciliation in Christ. Sadly those often times suffering Christians are told to be at best Eucharistic observers, because they follow the teachings of those in error or heresy.

We can bring to mind the words of Saint Ignatius of Antioch:

All who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; and all who repent [of schism] and come into the unity of the Church will also belong to God, that they may be living according to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake, my brothers. If anyone follows a man who causes a schism, he 'does not inherit the Kingdom of God'. And any man who goes in for strange doctrine disassociates himself from the Passion.

The posture that the Latin’s take on this comes from departing from the Orthodox Church. They read Matthew 19 in a legalistic rigid way. On the one hand separating that which God has joined together, right faith and right worship, mercy and compassion and on the other hand we can see the magisterium that thinks it can’t be wrong is following the letter of the law placing part of the flock in an irreconcilable position.

Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

If they approach the chalice they are said to be doing so in a state of “mortal” sin or doomed. If they go to confession, absolution is withheld until they get another divorce or live as brother and sister, etc. We can see that things are not always nice per se.

Interesting enough those that have committed adultery in their hearts are not in the same predicament. Thankfully the majisterium does not interpret Matthew 18:6 and apply it in a way that is wrong.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

The ascetical and correct theological understandings within the Eastern Orthodox Church compels her to be a place of reconciliation, for blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.

It is also interesting to note that in the Assyrian Church of the East marriage is not considered a sacrament (mysteria) even though the marriage occurs in the Church and there is a marriage service, the couple is blessed with the cross etc.

I’m rather curious to know if you have read anything within Saint Issacc’s writing that would lead one to believe that he shared such a view?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Herman Blaydoe

30-04-2007, 01:45 AM

Here is a simple thought.

Origen was in the Church, but some of his ideas were not OF the Church. This was the universal judgement of the Church, even if it took a while to come to the conclusion. He has not been acknowledged as a saint even though he was clearly in the Church. St. Isaac clearly had the MIND of the Church, regardless of where he happened to live, because the Church says so.

Or so it seems to this simple mind. FWIW.

John Charmley

30-04-2007, 09:28 AM

Dear Herman,

St. Isaac clearly had the MIND of the Church, regardless of where he happened to live, because the Church says so.

Of course that is so. As Fr. David rightly commented as far back as post 62:

The Church is an organism and she has obviously reached out and taken in St Isaac as one of her own despite whatever external political boundaries may have indicated otherwise.
But, as Matthew commented in post 69:

… But I don't think that in the exchange of this thread there's yet been a presentation of 'history' that fully embraces the task as ascetical transfiguration of observation and engagement, in a manner that wholly accounts for the way the Church approaches certain events and figures -- St Isaac being a clear example.
It is towards that end that the central thrust of this discussion has been trying to make headway.

If we are limiting it to an ecclesiological discussion then clearly there is little more to be said. But, to quote Fr. Raphael back in post 71:

My concern is more that history already seems to have debunked everything involving our Faith. My concern was, and is, that there is no need for this to be so (although I acknowledge the truth of what Fr. Raphael says here). Matthew's comment in post 73 was the stimulus for much of what has been written since:
If nothing else, some of what has been discussed above shows up the need for the Church today to come to grips with what history means in Christ - i.e. what is authentic theological history. And this is a need not because modern historical method needs reacting to or against, but because we in the Church have been too lazy, over the past 150 or so years, to continue to articulate authentic historical vision in the face of changing trends in secular versions, to the point that we are now in a place where 'history' sounds to some almost anathema to Christian truth - a thing that would have horrified beyond words, I am utterly convinced, the fathers of the Church.
It is that attempt to articulate an 'authentic theological history' which prompts me to continue what is proving an interesting, and I hope profitable, discussion.

In Christ,

John

Father David Moser

08-05-2007, 08:45 PM

In all of this talk about councils and canons, something that I think is missed is that canons, particularly those which impose some kind of penalty or excommunication are not "self acting" They must be applied by the Church to a particular person or group.

To my comments here previously, I would like to add the comments of Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff of Holy Transfiguration Catheral (ROCOR) in Los Angeles

And finally, one must return to the basic concept that anathemas are not self-effectuating and automatic.

St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain wrote that unless it is actually put into effect by a Synod of living Bishops, the imperative force of Canons remains unexecuted and does not act of itself, either immediately or before a decision.

If you want the whole quote, here it is:

1. We must know that the penalties provided by the canons, such as deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I am going to explain the matter better. The canons command the council of living Bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of the laymen, are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial, however, judicially, have as touching deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that offended him, if the slave in question fail to execute the king's command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping. So those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all those in Holy Orders who have been ordained contrary to the canons are actually deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus without understanding that the command of the canons, without the practical activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately and before the judgement. The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakenly, since they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is already and at once deposed, but that they command that he be deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and, if it be proven that he did so, then "we command that he be stripped of holy orders by your decision," they say.

So, there is your Patristic authority, making it clear that anathemas are
"legislation"--not an automatic sentencing, and that it takes a Council of
living bishops to effectuate them. And-- those bishops have to have
jurisdiction over those who are tried by them.

This statement appeared in a different group, however I found it to be so applicable to my statement here that I brought this small quote over.

Fr David Moser

Isaak Scott Cairns

08-05-2007, 09:13 PM

...and have since the moment I first came upon his Ascetical Homilies just over ten years ago. That love for him has since led to a deeper sense of prayer and an increasing sense of God's nearness and His endless love for us. These are the fruits by which I suppose that I know something of this saint, who is also my namesaint. He is, incidentally, among the most venerated (most read) of the fathers on the Holy Mountain. According to Elder Joseph's (the Hesychast) disciples (those same men who have labored to reinvigorate many languishing monasteries), whenever the elder asked one of them simply to "bring the book," they knew he meant for them to fetch Saint Isaac's homilies—further fruit and further evidence, yes?

Isaak

John Charmley

11-05-2007, 07:31 PM

Dear Isaak,

Thank you for this information, which confirms what we are all in agreement upon - namely his sanctity and the edifying nature of his writings.

St. Isaac's Church has never, in its own estimation, been Nestorian, nor yet taught the Christology of Nestorius, so in reality, it was only the application of a misleading label to his Church that gave rise to the problem which started this thread. Makes you wonder at times how many more problems come from misleading labels being stuck on others - but that was another thread some time ago, where we had an interesting discussion about that issue.

May be if people were a little more careful before they labelled others, and a little less attached to keeping labels past their sell-by date, we should have fewer problems in this world? That, however, might be to ask us to be more like Him and less like our sinful selves - in itself the sort of thing towards which the blessed saint directs us. One thing is for certain - if we follow his words we shall go less wrong than if we don't.

In Christ,

John

Rick H.

11-05-2007, 08:03 PM

Dear John,

When I read your last post, specifically in the following:

May be if people were a little more careful before they labeled others, and a little less attached to keeping labels past their sell-by date, we should have fewer problems in this world?

I was reminded of something MCS had said:

And the only way for that engagement to happen is to see the very category of theological labels from an ascetical perspective. Else they simply become ideological or territorial makers, which serve little end.

and, from this place, I was reminded of a follow-up, by Athanasius, who wisely said:

The question is essentially one of idealism vs. practicality--which I guess is a separate question, but one which Professor Steenberg's response provokes nevertheless.

Whereby, at once, one is almost forced to wonder, especially in light of an asectical perspective, is the aspiration for a genuine communion/union (as demonstrated in this thread) a practical thing? Or, is it merely the last dying gasp of the idealist (regardless of his label--or lack of one), who has given neither form nor function to his life while he was here?

In Christ,
Rick

Father David Moser

11-05-2007, 08:40 PM

it was only the application of a misleading label to his Church that gave rise to the problem which started this thread. Makes you wonder at times how many more problems come from misleading labels being stuck on others - but that was another thread some time ago, where we had an interesting discussion about that issue.

I think I understand John's sentiment here, but I find the expression of that sentiment to be somewhat misleading. Is John implying here that the Church has been in error all these years, that perhaps there is no true visible or sacramental unity of the Church simply because of some enduring "labels" that he claims were mistaken in the first place? This is not just discussed "some time ago" but succinctly addressed by Matthew S in the "Limits of the Church" thread - in particular this post #136 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45221&postcount=136) as well as the three linked to it 109, 120 and 124.

These "labels" at one time had meaning and just because we, who are far removed from them in history, do not recall or grasp those meanings that does not make them invalid or meaningless. If in fact the situation has changed and the former "labels" no longer apply, then it is up to those who are given the responsiblity and grace to guard and proclaim the boundaries of the Church and to "rightly divide the word of truth" - that is our hierarchs - to determine (and then to instruct us in their determination). And if we choose to question and disregard our hierarchs who are given to us by Christ, then what hope have we of ever reliably finding the path of salvation.

Fr David Moser

M.C. Steenberg

11-05-2007, 08:49 PM

Dear Rick,

You re-raise a point that was touched on here and there in the past, but which rather got swept under with the tide: namely, the nature of labels as instructive / ascetical guides. There is a good deal of reasonable discomfort with certain labels, and more broadly certain types of labels, seen simply as historical categorisations. In this realm, they are often inaccurate. But in its applications of various kinds of labels, the Church has often employed them not simply as historical markers or personal identifiers, but instructive paradigms for right, or wrong, praxis. So in some realms, the desire to move beyond certain labels has grounding; but it is too often pushed without taking on board the full range of ecclesiastical uses of such things, which aren't simply as personal / situational / group titles.

INXC, Matthew

John Charmley

11-05-2007, 11:06 PM

Dear Fr. David,

I think I understand John's sentiment here, but I find the expression of that sentiment to be somewhat misleading. Is John implying here that the Church has been in error all these years, that perhaps there is no true visible or sacramental unity of the Church simply because of some enduring "labels" that he claims were mistaken in the first place?

Since it appears unlikely that one could give an affirmative answer to the question of whether the Church was 'in error', it would seem to hinge on quite what 'Nestorian' meant at what stage; if by the use of the adjective we signify the sort of Nestorianism that Nestorius would not have recognised, it is quite possible to return a negative answer to the question you ask. That we would now consider it rather rude to use derogatory terms of others which they would not accept, should not blind us to the fact that it was habitual in the past, which we should refrain from judging by our standards; even as we might wish not to be confined by the norms of another era

It was Fr, Raphael who first, and correctly, asked the question as to whether the Church of the East was ever in any meaningful sense 'Nestorian' - if that term had a value or meaning to those who first used it, it seems doubtful that it has any utility to us; it would be good to know what had been said on this matter by the hierarchs in the Church.

That the word 'Nestorian' became a label seems clear enough, and as we have discussed before, such things have a utility, even as Matthew's last post described. It would seem improbable to a vanishingly small point that such considerations could have any bearing on true sacramental unity.

It simply seemed significant that the difficulty which prompted this thread was occasioned by the application of a label which, when examined, turned out to be irrelevant to the question of St. Isaac's sainthood; other, more important, standards applied and told us what was needful - which seemed interesting and worth noting. What we make of it on one level is possibly up to us - but what the Church made of it says something to each of us too.

In Christ,

John