Making us what He is

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Trying to explain to two of my non-Orthodox friends what we mean by the idea of 'Theosis', I have been reading through the Fathers to show them why this is so important to us and how Patristic the idea is.

My readings suggest the following instances, but I wonder if there are those among you who can add to them?

In the preface to Book 5 of his Against Heresies Irenaeus writes of:

Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.

This is the earliest Patristic reference I can find.

In his Exhortation to the Heathen chapter 1, Clement of Alexandria writes:
And now the Word Himself clearly speaks to thee, shaming thy
unbelief; yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn
from man how man may become God. In the Stromaeis he writes:
so he who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher — made a god going about in flesh.
In his On the Incarnation 54, St. Athanasius writes:

For He was made man that we might be made God;
Clearly, in the wrong hands, this is dangerous language, and one of the reasons we need to read it with the guidance of the Church, is so we read it aright and do not stumble.

The Scriptural references here seem to be to John 3:3; 2 Corinthians 5:14, and 2 Peter 1:4.

Of course, we cannot become what He is; we are sinners, He is without sin; He is divine, we are not. But in His sacrifice on the Cross He enables us to become one with Him, and to become, by adoption, sons of the Father.

New, as I am, to Orthodoxy, I wanted to ask for advice and for the opinion of others on this vital, but difficult question. I am very conscious of the frequent adjurations here to acquire an Orthodox mindset - and even more of the hurdles of pride and previous learning - so before I talk to my friends on this, I thought that posting here might be helpful.

If I am in error, please correct me - all guidance and advice appreciated.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John,

If you have access to any of the works of St Gregory Palamas these could be helpful.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Trudy]

Trying to explain to two of my non-Orthodox friends what we mean by the idea of 'Theosis'

St. Athanasius' passage you've quoted was explained in this manner in one of my history classes.

God created man, a perfect portrait, a perfect reflection of Himself. Not perfect but a reflection. Man sinned, marring the portrait. Christ came as man in order to sit for the portrait to be done again. The portrait painter is us as we look at Christ and follow Him. The more we pay attention to following Him, the more we will re-do the portrait to once again be a reflection of Him.

Hope this helps.

Athanasia

[John Charmley]

Dear Athanasia,

Many thanks, this is a very helpful way of explaining it.

In Book 5 of Against Heresies Irenaeus, taking Ephesians 1:10 as his starting point, sees the Incarnate Lord as recapitulating human history - but getting it right this time: the last Adam succeeds where the first one failed.

In doing this, it seems to me that Irenaeus is saying something else that Orthodoxy emphasises more than the tradition I have been used to - and that is, if you like, the corporate nature of mankind and the collective nature of the encounter with the Risen Lord, as well as the individual one.

Just as our bondage was the result of the fruit of the tree, so too was our salvation brought by the fruit of the Cross. Adam fell through the disobedience of the virgin Eve; our salvation comes through the medium of the Most Holy, blessed and ever-virgin Mary. Christ turns the failure and humiliation of the Cross into a glorious victory. Thus, for Irenaeus, in Christ the whole of human history is redeemed - and is repeated in Him - but this time according to the will of the Father.

This seems a profound insight - and one with ramifications very different from the western, liberal, individualistic understanding of the nature of man.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Theosis is the purpose of life. It is indeed trinitarian. It is the will of the Father, fulfilled by the Son, and realised in us by the Holy Spirit. This is done in the Church which 'is appointed to lead her children into the sphere of divine being' (Archimandrite Sophrony, 'We shall see Him as He is', pp 95-96). Being done in the Church, we cannot aim for and achieve theosis in isolation but only in community as members of the Body of Christ. Theosis is not in our power. Man co-operates with God through 'synergy'. The Son accomplished all that He did for us and thereby opened the way for the descent upon us of the Holy Spirit for the restoration of our spirit. To receive the Holy Spirit and to enable Him to operate upon us, we must lead a Christian life. This consists in participation in the sacraments (of Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, and Holy Communion) and in prayer, fasting and good works, all in the Name of Christ (otherwise these things will not help us). By these means, we attract the Holy Spirit and are transfigured from the old man to the new. Prayer must be pure so we use the 'Prayer of the Heart', the Jesus Prayer. In pure prayer we 'go into our closet', the white cell of the heart. In theosis, we retain our essence; it is not the reduction of our nature but its elevation. The whole process is one of liberation from our sinful, fallen state for 'where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty': 2 Cor. 3:17.

We should accept all this and believe that, as Father Zacharias told me, 'all is provided; we don't have to devise anything ourselves'. If we question these things, the evil one will destroy our efforts and steal the fruits of faith.

None of this is my own: it is what I have been taught about the life of the Orthodox Christian. Our chief example is the Mother of God.

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

Very many thanks for this. For all the good things that the Church to which my two friends belong does, it has, lost sight of these things, and my wish is to show, through what feeble efforts (with help) I can make, how the Orthodox understanding of Theosis is, as you put it so well 'the purpose of life'.

I was very struck by their reception of Irenaeus' understanding of Christ as recapitulating human history - but getting it right this time; with the obedience of the Most Holy Theotokos in place of the disobedience of Eve; and the willing sacrifice of the sinless Christ in place of the willful disobedience of Adam. Both my friends were familiar with Irenaeus, but had not been aware of this was of reading him, or of the link to Theosis. One reason I am anxious to share this here is that I know there are those here who can help, and where necessary, correct or amplify these things, because only in the Holy Wisdom of the Church is it given to understand these mysteries.

I am, as always, grateful for you help.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

This theme of putting right what went wrong runs throughout the services of Lent and Holy Week. All our Orthodox theology is expressed in the service books which is why they are a precious part of Tradition, not merely texts for various occasions.

[M.C. Steenberg]

IN terms of good resources for further reading, John, the best two that come to mind are the writings of St Symeon the New Theologian, and those of St Gregory Palamas (whom Fr Raphael has already mentioned).

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

I am most grateful to you, and to Fr. Raphael, for the references.

The theme of the personal encounter with the Person of Christ at the Eucharistic feast is, as you have written elsewhere, at the centre of what we do in worship. The Eucharist is the fulfilment of Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations, Says the Lord of hosts. As Justin puts it (Dialogue 41), it is the 'sacrifice of thanksgiving' in which we
thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were.

I shall follow up the reading. Many thanks.

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

For an address of deification as perceived through and in the liturgical life of the Church, the best address is undoubtedly Nicholas Cabasilas' Commentary on the Divine Liturgy. So far as I know, no other source within the Church has ever written in so integrated a manner of the 'mystical' life of theosis and the communal life of the sacramental mysteries.

INXC, Matthew

[Maria Mahoney]

For an address of deification as perceived through and in the liturgical life of the Church, the best address is undoubtedly Nicholas Cabasilas' Commentary on the Divine Liturgy.

Dear Matthew,

Would you share with us a small synopsis of what you found in this work?
Pleeeeeeease.......

In Christ,
Maria

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

Very many thanks for this further reference. I have just ordered a copy and await its arrival with unusual impatience. Of course, if you can be persuaded by Maria's plea ... ?

In Christ,

John

[Kusanagi]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Trying to explain to two of my non-Orthodox friends what we mean by the idea of 'Theosis', I have been reading through the Fathers to show them why this is so important to us and how Patristic the idea is.

My readings suggest the following instances, but I wonder if there are those among you who can add to them?

In the preface to Book 5 of his Against Heresies Irenaeus writes of:


This is the earliest Patristic reference I can find.

In his Exhortation to the Heathen chapter 1, Clement of Alexandria writes: In the Stromaeis he writes:
In his On the Incarnation 54, St. Athanasius writes:

Clearly, in the wrong hands, this is dangerous language, and one of the reasons we need to read it with the guidance of the Church, is so we read it aright and do not stumble.

The Scriptural references here seem to be to John 3:3; 2 Corinthians 5:14, and 2 Peter 1:4.

Of course, we cannot become what He is; we are sinners, He is without sin; He is divine, we are not. But in His sacrifice on the Cross He enables us to become one with Him, and to become, by adoption, sons of the Father.

New, as I am, to Orthodoxy, I wanted to ask for advice and for the opinion of others on this vital, but difficult question. I am very conscious of the frequent adjurations here to acquire an Orthodox mindset - and even more of the hurdles of pride and previous learning - so before I talk to my friends on this, I thought that posting here might be helpful.

If I am in error, please correct me - all guidance and advice appreciated.

In Christ,

John

This is what happened to some muslims that say there are many gods because we are called to become like God. But they missed the point that we are called to be like God as close as humanly possible with God's grace without being God Himself.

[RichardWorthington]

The idea that deified man becomes 'uncreated through grace' is frequent in Palamas's writings; it constitutes one of the essential proofs of the uncreated character of the energies. … In Christ and in the baptised there is one sole indivisible Spirit and, in him, all distinction between created and uncreated is inadmissible.

"Gregory Palamas" by Fr John Meyendorff, page 177 (Italics given in the book, bold my emphasis; by energies I understand operations / functions / functionality / manifestation.)

On page 8 of the "Genesis: Truth & Metaphor" (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1493&page=8#l144) thread I started to mention that our deification is our becoming 'uncreated by grace', and that the "Divine Light unites with the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, equally and identically. The spirit does not mediate for the body, nor the body for the spirit or soul". This then started a few replies, so I thought that it would be best to move it to a different thread rather than clutter up the existing one, and this one, "Making us what He is", seemed appropriate, especially with the mention of Gregory Palamas.

I can understand the replies my post received, after all, we are used to hearing about 'deification', but about becoming uncreated by grace …? However, I am not innovating in the slightest!! The quotation above regarding St Gregory Palamas should be enough to show this (also Palamas is himself merely copying the phrase from St Maximos the Confessor, see page 178 of the above book).

However, does the body share equally in deification? Or, in other words, does grace come through the soul to the body, or to both directly, equally and simultaneously?

It should be noted first that nothing created can mediate for the Uncreated. As such, if we are to believe that God does indeed work within us "both to will and to do" (Philippians 2:13), then the thoughts and feelings which His Uncreated Spirit works within us are indeed created thoughts and feelings. These are inspired in the soul, which is the life of the spirit, which is the life of the body. (Keeping the terms soul and spirit separate, although I am a bit rusty on this.) Hence the created effects of the uncreated grace do indeed 'pass' from soul to body (e.g. a brain scan would not indicate if a certain feeling was from us or was inspired by grace). This is for those who, like me, are not already perfected, but press on, that we may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of us (Philippians 3:12). (Our soul also receives grace via baptism and the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ, hence 'via' the body!)

Yet for those who "walk in the light as He is in the light" (1 John 1:7), things are entirely different. They become light as God is light; this is the vision of the uncreated divine Light, as St John says, "when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is" (1 John 3:2). However, if God's Uncreated Presence (i.e. grace or Light) comes to our body via our soul/spirit then how is it said that He is totally transcendent? If the soul or spirit is somehow closer to His own being than our bodies then is He not totally transcendent, for being totally transcendent implies that the term 'closer' can never be applied with any meaning (or is one number closer to infinity than another?). So to say that grace comes to our bodies via our souls or spirits is to insult the physical creation which God made; for He said of it, "It is very good", and even after the Fall looks kindly upon it. And His created creation will always remain "very good", thereby implying that by becoming uncreated by grace it is not destroyed, but transfigured into God's own Uncreated Life.

But whether deification is becoming uncreated by grace or returning only to some pristine created state can be seen by answering the following question:

Why did the Uncreated Creator create?
- That the Uncreated should become created, and the created should become Uncreated. And this happens only through the Son, who is both Uncreated God and created man without division or confusion: for His Godhead became man through woman, and as a man from the dust of the earth He entered through the earth to the whole creation, thereby deifying it all with His own Uncreated Presence, to the glory of the God the Father.

What are your thoughts on this?

Richard

[Andrew]

Man is always created, but he enters into the eternal uncreated life of God Himself. I think this language can be confusing. Saint Gregory Palamas and Saint Maximos were not saying that man no longer is a created being, but that when man becomes like God, deified, he enters into uncreated, eternal life. Uncreated in that it is God, His energies, and eternal in that time no longer pertains to this holy sabbath, this joyous eternal Pascha. But it is not a stasis, but a dynamic growth in perfection and uncreated glory. Elder Sophrony writes quite a bit on this in We Shall See Him As He Is. Man becomes uncreated, but he is still created. God became created, but He is uncreated, as he always has been. So, what God is by nature, man becomes by grace. Man does not lose his createdness, just as God didn't lose His uncreatedness.

[M.C. Steenberg]

That sounds about exactly right, Andrew.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard and others,

I admire your zeal in approaching this topic. However, I do think we need to take especial care with nuance of meaning in this kind of discussion; in the realm of sanctification / deification in Christian understanding, the line between authentic theology and heresy is at times paper-edge thin.

The current discussion on this matter came in the Genesis: Truth and Metaphor thread, in a post you made about the relationship of soul and body in receiving the grace and life of God. You comment there was:


The Divine Light unites with the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, equally and identically. The spirit does not mediate for the body, nor the body for the spirit or soul.

However, this is to conflate two distinct realities. The fact that God unites the whole human creation to himself is one issue; the how of the relation of God's life and grace to the human creature is another. On the latter, the fathers are express in indicating that the soul is the element in man that brings the immortal life of the Holy Spirit to the mortal creaturely frame; which brings the created being into communion with the uncreated God. This is clear in any number of the fathers (and I provided a few quotations (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53297&postcount=150)). Man is a 'composite being', of body and soul; and while it is always these two together that make up the person, the two are not one-and-the-same. Each is distinct, eternally distinct, and each has its own functions. And the soul, as the 'immaterial element in man' as it is so often called, is understood from the earliest days, by the fathers, as that which bears a unique connection to the Holy Spirit. The soul, distinct from the body, is nonetheless that which brings the body together with it into the full life of the Spirit. So it is the whole person, no less the toe than the eye or the heart or mind, that exists in communion with God; but this is through each part of the human creature acting in proper concert with its natural design - not by a conflation of those parts into some generic humanness.

This is why we must be careful with comments like 'The spirit does not mediate for the body, nor the body for the spirit or soul.' This can be especially misleading. If it is said in the sense that somehow the soul/spirit (the two terms are confused in the quotation) is 'higher' than the body or participates in God's life differently, then it is fair enough in its challenge. But this is not how mediation is understood. The soul of course has a different relation to God than the body: it is soul, not body. Relation is always a relation of subjects, and body and soul are not the same. But the person is body and soul, and in the person's relation to God the soul is not of a higher or better sort in relation, since the person is related to God in both.

It seems to me that you conflate these ideas in your comments, which causes problems. For example, you write:


However, does the body share equally in deification? Or, in other words, does grace come through the soul to the body, or to both directly, equally and simultaneously?

It is your 'in other words' that sites the difficulty, for the question 'does the body share equally in deification?' is not the same as, and cannot be restated by asking, 'does grace come through the soul to the body, or to both directly?' You are addressing yourself to two very different concerns, and basing these on what seems to me a different understanding of mediation / sharing.

To the question 'does the body share equally in deification', the answer is of course yes. God in Christ deifies the whole person, and the person is body and soul.

To the question of how body and soul have their share in this sanctifying union with God, one has to say that they share differently, because they are different. The soul has its portion in the divine life as soul, the body as body. And as the body is breathed to life by the soul, as the soul is the 'animating breath' of the body, as many fathers put it, so the shared reality of the person's experience of divine grace also involves this dynamic. The soul doesn't cease to be the soul, and to function as the soul to the body, in the deified relationship with God.

You write, a bit later in your post:


It should be noted first that nothing created can mediate for the Uncreated. As such, if we are to believe that God does indeed work within us "both to will and to do" (Philippians 2:13), then the thoughts and feelings which His Uncreated Spirit works within us are indeed created thoughts and feelings. These are inspired in the soul, which is the life of the spirit, which is the life of the body. (Keeping the terms soul and spirit separate, although I am a bit rusty on this.) Hence the created effects of the uncreated grace do indeed 'pass' from soul to body (e.g. a brain scan would not indicate if a certain feeling was from us or was inspired by grace).

I wonder what you mean by 'mediation' in your boldface comment. There are ways in which it is absolutely true, and ways in which it is false (e.g. the fact that all creation mediates God's grace and love, which is why he created it). But the real difficulty I have with this comment comes in the sentences that follow this remark, in which you talk about the realities 'mediated' by the soul as 'thoughts and feelings' worked in man by the Spirit. Fair enough, these are realities in the created realm; but they're also not what we're talking about. We mustn't conflate these ideas, any more than the others. We are speaking of the way in which the body and soul, as distinct realities, relate to the sanctifying presence of the Spirit himself.

I do appreciate very much your comment later, on the soul receiving grace through the 'bodily' (i.e. physical) realities of Eucharist and baptism. But this rather makes the point more pronounced, that body and soul do experience the grace of God differently, since they are different; and yet the person participates uniformly, unitedly in God's grace, as the person is body and soul together.

When human life is deified, 'become God by union with God', the authentic human creation is taken up into the divine life, made singular through the incarnation of the Son. It becomes uncreated through its communion with the uncreated one; yet it is uncreated in its createdness, which is always preserved in this union. The deified person is the creature borne up in the uncreated, the temporal in the timeless, the mortal in the immortal. He is not uncreated-full-stop, any more than the incarnate Christ is God-full-stop. The incarnate Christ is God and man, and deification is the full realisation of this incarnational reality in each created human life. So claims of deified man's uncreatedness must always (and only) be made in specific, emphasised conjunction with statements that the one thus uncreated is so in his createdness, as creature.

These are just a few thoughts. I'm grateful for the thought-provoking topic.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Nina]

"A man does not possess all the gifts, lest he think that grace is nature."

From St. John Chrysostom (as quoted by St. Gregory Palamas, The Philokalia Vol. 4; Faber and Faber pg. 395)

[Kosta]

That both body and soul participate in theosis is a given as the above posts excellently explain. Upon the death of many saints, their bodies do not decompose but remain incorrupt and fragrant. As if they halt the full extant of fallen nature and ancestral sin which is death.

I would like to hear a few comments on another possible aspect of deification. Does a holy person who is being sanctified and full of the uncreated energies, does the fallen nature around him participate in someways with this theosis?

It was by man that all of creation fell, would it imply that a sanctified man have the effects to divinize nature around him? I ask this because there are plenty of stories of holy hermits such as on Mt Athos where animals and snakes which tend to be predatory and hostile, when around such a holy person cease to exhibit this behavior. As if the food chain where the big fish eats the little fish or i guess in the case of Athos, the cat eating the mouse is abolished. Where the animals and snakes dont run away when in the midst of such a person or run away from each other. This is what is prophecied in Isaiah 65.25 atleast for after the second coming

Any comments?

[Andreas Moran]

I would like to hear a few comments on another possible aspect of deification. Does a holy person who is being sanctified and full of the uncreated energies, does the fallen nature around him participate in someways with this theosis?

It was by man that all of creation fell, would it imply that a sanctified man have the effects to divinize nature around him? I ask this because there are plenty of stories of holy hermits such as on Mt Athos where animals and snakes which tend to be predatory and hostile, when around such a holy person cease to exhibit this behavior. As if the food chain where the big fish eats the little fish or i guess in the case of Athos, the cat eating the mouse is abolished. Where the animals and snakes dont run away when in the midst of such a person or run away from each other. This is what is prophecied in Isaiah 65.25 atleast for after the second coming

Any comments?

Dear Kosta,

In the second quoted paragraph, you answer your own question in the first. One thinks of the many stories of saints and animals such as those about St Cuthbert and St Seraphim of Sarov. The latter saint famously said, 'acquire grace and thousands around you will be saved'. I was taught that not only do holy people sanctify things around them but priests by their prayers and also all of us by our prayers may do this. Why else do we have our cars and houses blessed, for example? Once, a biker was passing the monastery and his bike broke down right outside the gates. Father Sophrony chatted with the man, and then made the sign of the Cross on the bike which worked perfectly. The food at the monastery here is very simple but, being prepared with prayer, it tastes wonderful. Conversely, as I have mentioned elsewhere some time ago, our sins spread out into creation like ripples made by throwing a stone in a pond and add to the fallenness of creation.

The posts about grace, the created and the uncreated remind me of something Fr Zacharias said to me some time ago. He said that taking Holy Communion is an exchange of lives.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Kosta, you wrote:



I would like to hear a few comments on another possible aspect of deification. Does a holy person who is being sanctified and full of the uncreated energies, does the fallen nature around him participate in someways with this theosis?


If you don't mind, perhaps I might just say that I find the language of being 'full' of the uncreated energies somewhat difficult. We must remind ourselves that God in his energies is not made into a substance, however ethereal, that can be possessed, had, contained. God in his energies transforms creation. Creation does not become full of those energies (for God is always everywhere, filling all things); but creation is transfigured in them.

But that comment to one side, Andreas has already offered a response to your comment - namely that you answer it with your own examples! It is perhaps the theology expressed in St Maximus, more than any single other, that shows how one individual's life, sanctified, sanctifies with it the whole cosmos.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren,

In the Fathers I read about Theosis that man is created like God but he still had to grow to be like God. So he was not ready made, just the seed was there and then he fall..

Until Jesus came and put the things in the right places again, so we can start again to grow, to become like Him!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Andreas Moran]

We are deified in Christ because 'of his fulness have all we received' (John 1:16).

[RichardWorthington]

Dcn Matthew & all,


I wonder what you mean by 'mediation' in your boldface comment

I think we coming at this from different angles! It is as if I have just come from a meeting with a Jehovah's Witness and am stressing the divine aspect of Christ and henceforth the divine aspect of our union with God. However, you have just come from a meeting with a Gnostic (who denies the goodness of creation) and are stressing the goodness of physical creation and that it remains created in this Union. Yet, I am stressing the divine aspect because it is the physical creation that is taken up into the divine (and at that not as a secondary 'divine after-thought' so to speak), and so I suppose you are stressing the creation because it is good and is not destroyed in the divine! I think, in this, we agree!! :)

However, I did go back and re-read John Meyendorff's book on Gregory Palamas, and here are a few relevant quotations:


In the same way as the Divinity of the Word Incarnate is common to soul and body … so, in spiritual men, is the grace of the Spirit transmitted to the body by the soul as intermediary. (page 143)
So, Father Deacon, you are right [ ;) ] - however,

On the day of the Transfiguration, [Christ's] Body, source of the light of grace, was not yet united with our bodies ; it illumined from outside those who worthily approached it, and sent the illumination [B]into the soul by the intermediary of the physical eyes; but now, since it is mingled with us and exists in us it illuminates the soul from within. (page 151)
If it is via the physical eyes, then physical creation is also not secondary!

However, I think the word 'mediation' can be understood in two ways: the one initiating the contact, and the one through whom the contact takes place. In the first interpretation, it is the purity of the soul (and not bodily purity!) that initiates the contact with the divine.

But for the second interpretation, there is never any concept of 'passing through' or 'flowing through' for the Divine Light, which is "everywhere present and fills all things" (even if it is not visible), and yet it is also described as being sent and transmitted via a created object. As such, I would suggest that the Divine Light is simultaneously and instantaneously and directly present both in the created 'passing through' and in the created end (i.e. through soul to body, or through eyes to soul); hence both descriptions are valid.

Perhaps it would be good to mention that deification is the union with the Uncreated Divine Light, wherein the created remains created but receives eternal life (that eternal life being another term for God Himself: "This is the true God, and eternal life" 1 John 5:20). As such it could be useful to think about how the word 'grace' is used. For example, we do receive grace by reading the Bible, but this is not the Uncreated Vision of the Divine Light!

Richard :)

[Andreas Moran]

When my late first wife had a vision of the Uncreated Light, she could see only a blue light and nothing else but her vision of this light was the same whether her eyes were open or closed.

[RichardWorthington]

I would like to hear a few comments on another possible aspect of deification. Does a holy person who is being sanctified and full of the uncreated energies, does the fallen nature around him participate in someways with this theosis?

It was by man that all of creation fell, would it imply that a sanctified man have the effects to divinize nature around him? I ask this because there are plenty of stories of holy hermits such as on Mt Athos where animals and snakes which tend to be predatory and hostile, when around such a holy person cease to exhibit this behavior.
…
Any comments?

I think the examples given of such animals returning to their original state of non-aggression in the presence of a holy person do not quite serve as examples. Such non-aggression is a return to their natural state in the presence of a human who has (substantially) returned to our natural state of 'passionless-ness'. It is true that divine grace is needed for us to return to our pristine state, but that state is in itself natural, and so not supernatural, so to speak.


And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him (Moses) in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. (Exdos 3:2)

Surely what we should be looking for are such examples as these, where nature (the bush in this case) was burning without being consumed (like becoming uncreated while remaining created!?).


Now the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road. (Numbers 22:23)

Here, the donkey sees the Angel of the Lord, but not Balaam yet. (Surely, to see the Divine Light is to see the Angel of the Lord - this Angel who became incarnate as Jesus - albeit due to unworthiness all that is commonly seen is merely His Light?) And as the donkey speaks later on, it is clear that at that moment it is living outside of this fallen world. (Also, as Balaam does not react when he hears the donkey speak, surely God's grace had touched him to keep him from acknowledging as yet what was happening, so that God's glory may be more greatly manifest?)

Also, I interpret Psalm 29 ("the LORD splinters the cedars of Lebanon … in His temple everyone says, 'Glory!' ") as being a manifestation of the Divine Light in the temple in the form of "burning without being consumed" (in the temple there were many water basins, and carved animals, and the walls were of golden cedar wood, from Lebanon!).

However, if this is not slightly off the mark, my favourite 'divine intervention' is the description of the moment of the incarnation of the Timeless within time as recorded in the infancy gospel of James (chapter 18):


Then, Joseph wandered, but he did not wander. And I looked up to the peak of the sky and saw it standing still and I looked up into the air. With utter astonishment I saw it, even the birds of the sky were not moving. And I looked at the ground and saw a bowl lying there and workers reclining. And their hands were in the bowl. And chewing, they were not chewing. And picking food up, they were not picking it up. And putting food in their mouths, they were not putting it in their mouths. Rather, all their faces were looking up.

And I saw sheep being driven, but the sheep were standing still. And the shepherd lifted up his hand to strike them, but his hand remained above them. And I saw the rushing current of the river and I saw goats and their mouths resting in the water, but they were not drinking. And suddenly everything was replaced by the ordinary course of events.

Richard

PS. Thank you very much Andreas for sharing your wife's experience. Having not had such an experience I do not know what to make of it. However, may God grant rest to her soul, and grant you much help and many blessings.

[Andreas Moran]

Richard

PS. Thank you very much Andreas for sharing your wife's experience. Having not had such an experience I do not know what to make of it.

If you had had such an experience you wouldn't mention it, of course. It hasn't happened to me and I don't expect it to. The experience happened to Kathryn where we were staying for Holy Week 1998 at the monastery here (the first Pascha after her Baptism). It was on Holy Wednesday after the anointing service. She'd didn't know about the Light, so she was safe from pride. It happened again on the evening of Holy Friday and on Holy Saturday. I didn't tell her anything of what I had read concerning the Light. I told Fr Zacharias about it and he told me not to ask her anything about it and not to tell anyone [whilst she was alive]. He confirmed the authenticity of it as a vision of the Uncreated Light. Two and a half years later, in the weeks before she died, there were several occasions when her face shone with light but she didn't realise it.

[Karena Hryniuk]

When my late first wife had a vision of the Uncreated Light, she could see only a blue light and nothing else but her vision of this light was the same whether her eyes were open or closed.

This is otherwise known as an 'Aura' Andreas. If anyone recalls this photo of beloved Saint John Maximovitch, it shows a very clear display of the light.

http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/MOM%2005%202007.htm

+++
Karena

[Father David Moser]

If anyone recalls this photo of beloved Saint John Maximovitch, it shows a very clear display of the light.

An interesting factoid. The "Old Cathedral" of the Virgin in SF (the one in which St John served) has latches on the inside of the deacon's doors (so that they could be locked from the inside). This seemed very strange to the current rector (Hieromonk James) and his predecessor and spiritual father (Archimandrite Anastassy). Although they tried to find out why these latches were there (why would anyone want to lock the altar from the inside???) they could not find any kind of reason why this was. At the funeral of Fr Anastassy, there was a visitor who had been a parishioner an altar server in the days of Archbishop John. He mentioned these latches to Fr James and explained to Fr James that in the days of Archbishop John during the anaphora (the consecration of the elements) all the doors to the altar were locked from the inside to prevent anyone coming in. This was done because during that time Vladyka John would unfailingly begin to shine with the divine light and the doors were locked so that no "curiosity seekers" or anyone that could be tempted by the obvious evidence of his holiness would be able to "accidentally" enter or see this manifestation. No other altar that I have ever seen has locks on these doors, only the old cathedral.

BTW, anyone who has the chance to visit San Francisco and to make a pilgrimage to the relics of St John in the Cathedral of the Holy Virgin - be sure that you do not miss also going to the old Cathedral where Fr James will tell you this story and many others of the sanctity of St John and will serve a molieben with St John's mantia there. Also, do not fail to visit St Tikhon's which was formerly St John's orphanage and residence in San Francisco. There his cell in preserved intact as it was in his life and one is allowed to pray there in his cell and even to sit in his chair.

Fr David Moser

[Nicolaj]

This is otherwise known as an 'Aura' Andreas.


This is not know as aura! Aura is something completely different and also in use by the unbelievers.(for instance Islam)

Uncreated Light is Uncreated Light! It has a divine genesis.

Thanks for the beautiful picture of St. John!

In Christ, Nicolaj

[Andreas Moran]

This is not know as aura!

Uncreated Light is Uncreated Light! It has a divine genesis.
I think this is right. Fr Zacharias said it was the Uncreated Light, and I didn't see anything. The later shining of the face was more likely the aura (or whatever) because I and others could see it.

[Karena Hryniuk]

This is not know as aura! Aura is something completely different and also in use by the unbelievers.(for instance Islam)

Uncreated Light is Uncreated Light! It has a divine genesis.

Thanks for the beautiful picture of St. John!

In Christ, Nicolaj

Apologies for the misinterpretation, that wasn't my intention.

In Christ
Karena

[Nina]

An interesting factoid. The "Old Cathedral" of the Virgin in SF (the one in which St John served) has latches on the inside of the deacon's doors (so that they could be locked from the inside). This seemed very strange to the current rector (Hieromonk James) and his predecessor and spiritual father (Archimandrite Anastassy). Although they tried to find out why these latches were there (why would anyone want to lock the altar from the inside???) they could not find any kind of reason why this was. At the funeral of Fr Anastassy, there was a visitor who had been a parishioner an altar server in the days of Archbishop John. He mentioned these latches to Fr James and explained to Fr James that in the days of Archbishop John during the anaphora (the consecration of the elements) all the doors to the altar were locked from the inside to prevent anyone coming in. This was done because during that time Vladyka John would unfailingly begin to shine with the divine light and the doors were locked so that no "curiosity seekers" or anyone that could be tempted by the obvious evidence of his holiness would be able to "accidentally" enter or see this manifestation. No other altar that I have ever seen has locks on these doors, only the old cathedral.

BTW, anyone who has the chance to visit San Francisco and to make a pilgrimage to the relics of St John in the Cathedral of the Holy Virgin - be sure that you do not miss also going to the old Cathedral where Fr James will tell you this story and many others of the sanctity of St John and will serve a molieben with St John's mantia there. Also, do not fail to visit St Tikhon's which was formerly St John's orphanage and residence in San Francisco. There his cell in preserved intact as it was in his life and one is allowed to pray there in his cell and even to sit in his chair.

Fr David Moser

And to think that whenever I was in SF, I wasted my time doing all other things, but these! I am so sad now that I have missed so much! Thank you Father David for letting us know for the future God willing.

Maybe we should start a thread with Orthodox spiritual treasures we know about here in US, and all over the world.

[Mary]

An interesting factoid. The "Old Cathedral" of the Virgin in SF (the one in which St John served) has latches on the inside of the deacon's doors (so that they could be locked from the inside). This seemed very strange to the current rector (Hieromonk James) and his predecessor and spiritual father (Archimandrite Anastassy). Although they tried to find out why these latches were there (why would anyone want to lock the altar from the inside???) they could not find any kind of reason why this was. At the funeral of Fr Anastassy, there was a visitor who had been a parishioner an altar server in the days of Archbishop John. He mentioned these latches to Fr James and explained to Fr James that in the days of Archbishop John during the anaphora (the consecration of the elements) all the doors to the altar were locked from the inside to prevent anyone coming in. This was done because during that time Vladyka John would unfailingly begin to shine with the divine light and the doors were locked so that no "curiosity seekers" or anyone that could be tempted by the obvious evidence of his holiness would be able to "accidentally" enter or see this manifestation. No other altar that I have ever seen has locks on these doors, only the old cathedral.

BTW, anyone who has the chance to visit San Francisco and to make a pilgrimage to the relics of St John in the Cathedral of the Holy Virgin - be sure that you do not miss also going to the old Cathedral where Fr James will tell you this story and many others of the sanctity of St John and will serve a molieben with St John's mantia there. Also, do not fail to visit St Tikhon's which was formerly St John's orphanage and residence in San Francisco. There his cell in preserved intact as it was in his life and one is allowed to pray there in his cell and even to sit in his chair.

Fr David Moser

Fr David,
Thank you so much for sharing this story!! Oh, how I wish I'd known all this the last time we were in CA! Perhaps God will work it out for us to go back again soon...


Mary

[RichardWorthington]

I think this is right. Fr Zacharias said it was the Uncreated Light, and I didn't see anything. The later shining of the face was more likely the aura (or whatever) because I and others could see it.

I was unsure about the photographs of light around St John Maximovitch, because by definition by being able to be photographed that light was created. I have never heard the word 'aura' used to describe this, but I did find this in the commentary of St John Chrysostom (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.v.vii.html) on 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 (about Moses's face shining and him wearing a veil):


"Looking steadfastly," said he, "upon the face of Stephen, they saw it as it had been the face of an angel." (Acts vi. 15.) But this was nothing to the glory flashing within. For what Moses had upon his countenance, that did these carry about with them on their souls, yea ‘rather’ even far more. For that of Moses indeed was more obvious to the senses, but this was incorporeal. (para 6)

In other words, the light which shone from Moses's face (and was seen by all and was stopped by a veil) and the light from St Stephen's face (which was seen by those who condemned him) was created, being seen by the senses. I take the movie clips of the flashing light at the Holy Fire in Jerusalem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cn49rhej7o) (described by one commentator who saw it as "those bright bluish flashing lights arent cameras, thats the holy spirit") and Apparitions Of Holy Virgin Mary in (Zeitoun,Cairo,1968) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVXEh4Jzs2s&feature=related) as being created lights and images, being a symbol of what they are pointing to, but not the reality. (Mary lives now only in the uncreated Light, as does her Son; observe that I am not discriminating between these visions of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.)

A vision of the uncreated Light is described by Nicholas Motovilov of St Seraphim of Sarov (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspx):



Then Father Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: "We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. Why don't you look at me?"

I replied: "I cannot look, Father, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes ache with pain."

Father Seraphim said: "Don't be alarmed, your Godliness! Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am."
...
After these words I glanced at his face and there came over me an even greater reverent awe. Imagine in the center of the sun, in the dazzling light of its midday rays, the face of a man talking to you. You see the movement of his lips and the changing expression of his eyes, you hear his voice, you feel someone holding your shoulders; yet you do not see his hands, you do not even see yourself or his figure, but only a blinding light spreading far around for several yards and illumining with its glaring sheen both the snow-blanket which covered the forest glade and the snow-flakes which besprinkled me and the great Elder. You can imagine the state I was in!


Richard

[Antonios]

..by definition by being able to be photographed that light was created...

...In other words, the light which shone from Moses's face (and was seen by all and was stopped by a veil) and the light from St Stephen's face (which was seen by those who condemned him) was created, being seen by the senses. I take the movie clips of the flashing light at the Holy Fire in Jerusalem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cn49rhej7o) (described by one commentator who saw it as "those bright bluish flashing lights arent cameras, thats the holy spirit") and Apparitions Of Holy Virgin Mary in (Zeitoun,Cairo,1968) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVXEh4Jzs2s&feature=related) as being created lights and images, being a symbol of what they are pointing to, but not the reality.

Dear Richard,

I think you are putting limitations to God.

In Christ,
Antonios

[RichardWorthington]

I think you are putting limitations to God.
Actually, I'm just confused if it is otherwise!

St Seraphim of Sarov (quoted above) said, "You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am", and the Declaration of the Holy Mountain (para. 4) says similarly:


Thus Christ was transfigured, not by the addition of something He was not, nor by a transformation into something He was not, but by the manifestation to His disciples of what He really was. He opened their eyes so that instead of being blind they could see. While He Himself remained the same, they could now see Him as other than He had appeared to them formerly. (Philokalia, vol. 4 page 422)

And this is where I get confused: If such flashes of light are uncreated and then caught on either film, tape, or memory card by a camera or camcorder, then do these inanimate things also become transfigured, and remain transfigured so anyone can see the light despite their unworthiness? Similarly, instead of great effort to overcome the passions to become worthy (and at that, worthy by God's grace) of the vision of the Uncreated Light, can we merely visit the Holy Sepulchre on Great and Holy Saturday to see these flashes of light and so attain without effort to worthily seeing the Divine Light?

As an example, here is a vision of the Mother of God to St Seraphim of Sarov and the nun Eupraxia, who recounted:


Then the door of the cell opened of itself, it became light, brighter than day … Father [Seraphim] was kneeling with his hands raised to heaven. I was terrified. Father stood up and said: 'Don't be afraid child' …
[The Queen of Heaven appeared]
… I was terrified and fell down. The Queen of Heaven came up to me … and said: 'Stand up, girl, and don't be afraid of us' … Father Seraphim was no longer on his knees, but was standing on his feet before the most holy Mother of God, and she was speaking to him as graciously as if he were one of her own family. ("St Seraphim of Sarov: A Spiritual Biography", Archimandrite Lazarus Moore, page 413-415)

In this vision of the Mother of God there is a huge difference between the actions and reactions of St Seraphim and Mother Eupraxia. St Seraphim was worthy, and Mother Eupraxia was 'getting there' (I think it would be correct to put it this way?). What then of ordinary people attending the Paschal Service, or seeing the apparitions on top of the holy churches? If what ordinary people see is the Uncreated Divine Light, then how come they did not fall down in fear, but merely looked amazed?

If there is any other way to make sense of this (and I know that we cannot understand everything with our intellect) then I would love to hear it. As I said, if it is not like this then I am merely confused!

Richard
:confused:

[Antonios]

Dear Richard,

There is no reason to be confused! You are, after all, trying to explain divine things. It should thereby come as no surprise that you cannot completely understand such things! That is unless God has graced you with such knowledge!

I, for one, have not been given such a precious gift, so I'm afraid I cannot explain to you by what standards God allows various peoples to experience such supernatural things as The Uncreated Light and visitations from the Saints. It is enough for me to know that if God wanted an unworthy sinner to witness such an event, or to have it caught on film, it would be completely within His Infinite power. This is what I meant to say about putting limitations on God.


Similarly, instead of great effort to overcome the passions to become worthy (and at that, worthy by God's grace) of the vision of the Uncreated Light, can we merely visit the Holy Sepulchre on Great and Holy Saturday to see these flashes of light and so attain without effort to worthily seeing the Divine Light?...

...What then of ordinary people attending the Paschal Service, or seeing the apparitions on top of the holy churches? If what ordinary people see is the Uncreated Divine Light, then how come they did not fall down in fear, but merely looked amazed?The degrees of deification which result from the practice of the commandments, that is, what one's particular progress is in the stages of purification, illumination and deification, vary from individual to individual, but is always the result of God's grace and never by our own efforts. True, one needs to put effort into this in the way of practice, but there is no grace if not by God. So, who can say they are worthy of such a gift? Surely, not the saints!

Using the example of the Transfiguration, Jesus brought with Him His three closest disciples. Was it only these three who could have witnessed this glorious event? If He had invited Judas, or even Caiphas or Pilate to come along to Mount Tabor that night, could He not also made them eyewitnesses of His Transfiguration? If the answer is no, than it is putting limitations on God.

So, the bigger question would be "Why does God allow some to witness such supernatural things (relative to this fallen nature), and other not to?" This is a question beyond our comprehension and solely within the Wisdom of God. Surely, God know what is needed for our salvation!

Also, it is completely normal to question such experiences (for we know satan has deceived even the greatest of saints). There is nothing inherently wrong in being skeptical about a particular experience or event, especially when it goes against the teachings and experience of the Church.

What is not conductive to spiritual growth, however, is to start labeling one person 'ordinary', or less worthy than another, since this judgment is for God alone. We should rather understand that God is All-powerful and concentrate on our own sins and unworthiness.

Therefore, we should not be expending so much energy into deciphering and sometimes discrediting another's experience, but rather use that energy into the work of our own salvation- never with the aim or goal of experiencing supernatural gifts from God, but rather for tears and prayers for God's mercy.

In Christ,
Antonios