The practice of a rule of prayer

[M.C. Steenberg]

NOTE: This post and subsequent moved here from a different location, to start a focussed thread on this theme.


Remember: rules of prayer are given and received, not developed; and they are primarily rules of obedience in prayer, not reflection or contemplation.

INXC, Matthew

(Perhaps this has been touched on earlier; I don't really read this thread, so am not sure. But the last few posts have called awareness of this principle into question.)

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,


Remember: rules of prayer are given and received, not developed; and they are primarily rules of obedience in prayer, not reflection or contemplation.

Indeed, and the Coptic Agpeya gives those of us who use it a very clear structure to our prayer life. It contains the seven canonical prayers (see Psalms 119:164) which the Copts have used for more than a millennium and a half.

The hours of the day start from sunrise and end at sunset. The morning prayer (Prime), which corresponds to 6 a.m., is said upon waking up in the morning or after the Midnight praise the previous night. The Terce (9 a.m.) and Sext (noon) hours are prayed before each liturgy during the Offering of Incense. The None (3 p.m.) hour is also read during fasting days. Vespers (sunset) and Compline (9 p.m.) are read in the early evening and before bedtime, respectively. and are both read before the Liturgy during the Lent and the fast of Nineveh. The Midnight hour is read just before the Midnight Praise.

There is a good English translation at http://www.agpeya.org/

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John,

What you've described is fairly different from the concept of a prayer rule (kanon) in the traditional Orthodox sense (Orthodox here in the forum's sense of Chalcedonian), which focusses this tradition on the individually-prescribed regula handed to the disciple by the spiritual father. It is bound up first and foremost in the obedience of the canon; in the willing submission to the prayer and instruction of guidance.

What you are describing sounds more along the lines of the culture of the hours of prayer. Clearly also critical! But to be identified in distinction.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear John,

What you've described is fairly different from the concept of a prayer rule (kanon) in the traditional Orthodox sense (Orthodox here in the forum's sense of Chalcedonian), which focusses this tradition on the individually-prescribed regula handed to the disciple by the spiritual father. It is bound up first and foremost in the obedience of the canon; in the willing submission to the prayer and instruction of guidance.

What you are describing sounds more along the lines of the culture of the hours of prayer. Clearly also critical! But to be identified in distinction.

INXC, Matthew


Dear Matthew,

Interesting; many thanks for this. The view put to me was that what we should do was to attune our own spiritual practice to that of the wider Church, since it is in that that we are saved; it emphasised the corporate nature of salvation, so to say. Within that we are encouraged to develop such prayers as we find helpful and edifying, but that is, I suspect, still quite different from the regula as you describe it.

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Interesting; many thanks for this. The view put to me was that what we should do was to attune our own spiritual practice to that of the wider Church, since it is in that that we are saved; it emphasised the corporate nature of salvation, so to say. Within that we are encouraged to develop such prayers as we find helpful and edifying, but that is, I suspect, still quite different from the regula as you describe it.

The practice of the canonical hours is an important part of the rhythm of daily life as liturgical expression; and indeed, it is a pattern of scripture in prayer that, when the hours are kept at home, unites one to that ecclesial rhythm even in absence from the temple. This pattern strikes home quickly to anyone who has kept all the hours each day for even a short period, as one discovers that the hours are identical, save for a change in the selection of psalms, the tropar and kondak, and the concluding prayer. But the structure of each hour is the same: three psalms, tropar, verses, trisagion, kondak, the prayer of the hours, conclusion, final prayer. To engage in a practice of saying the hours integrates one into this liturgical rhythm of repetition in its positive sense: so that common and familiar prayer becomes like the pulse in one's blood throughout the day.

I do think, though, that in any conversation that talks about 'spiritual practices', etc., it is important to bear in mind the distinction between this kind of practice of keeping the hours, and a prayer rule in the traditional sense of that term in the Church. A prayer rule is undivorcably part of a relationship between spiritual child and spiritual father, and is first and foremost a rule of obedience: heeding a thing given. The form of a rule varies widely (since it is by nature always pastorally given, and thus personal); but tends to involve far more prostrations, canons, readings, repetitions of the Prayer, etc., than it does keeping of ecclesial hours or other services (since normally it accompanies these). In lay parish life, this is of course much mediated -- but the general idea, of a prayer rule being a given thing, to which the response is obedience rather than agreement, remains.

This is because a prayer rule is seen as not primarily an aid in contemplation, but a tool for the transformation into the Eucharistic life of authentic prayer. Its chief aim is not so much the feeding of the mind but the transformation of the will. This transformation cleanses the heart; and only when the heart is open can the mind ever really be fed.

One can certainly develop a custom or habit of habitual prayer and reading for oneself; but a 'prayer rule' devised for one's self is never fully a rule in this traditional understanding (even though it may be beneficial in many other ways).

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

"The question that we keep coming back to with no clear answer . . ."


Dear Matthew, Father David, 'Learner,' and All,

Matthew, thank you so very much for drawing, so clearly for us, this distinction in the above post. And, Father David, even though I thanked you privately for the distinction that you have drawn in our previous conversation, I want to thank you publicly now in the same way. The way you both have clearly articulated, and laid down precepts of the Orthodox Way in these recent conversations, just cuts through any and all confusion. There is a painting of a picture that is taking place, here in a very helpful way, one brush stroke at a time. Or, you could say there is a very beautiful tapestry that is being created one thread at a time, as we lay down in a very systematic way, "precept upon precept."

Also, I would like to mention that as I continue to study Church History, and the History of Christian Thought, I can see especially how, as most of us know, there has been so much confusion/strife and such a high degree of grief over the usage of certain words (viz. East/West, Greek/Latin). In some of these individual instances, we can see via history, often times, men who seemed to be at odds with each other were really saying the exact same thing! But, at times, they were using words that had a "special meaning" without possibly recognizing this at the time. Or, possibly while both 'sides' thought they *were* clearly communicating their message and being understood by the other; in fact, there was a very low or no degree of true interpersonal communication. And, when we add such things as emotions and politics into the picture, it is very easy to see (and experience) even today how devastating it can be when such a dynamic as this enters a particular discussion. Somewhat like when we were kids. I remember running down a hill one day when I was younger. I can't remember why I was doing this. But, I remember running down this hill, faster and faster I went until I was at a point where I was out of control. I was running so fast that I couldn't stop; but, what was worse I kept running even faster . . . until I finally fell and rolled to a stop (with not a few scrapes and bruises to show for my efforts). Somewhat like the man who is riding the tiger, as long as he is riding the tiger, he is safe, but he can never get off the tiger, because once he gets off, the tiger would eat him!

But, I say all of that to simply say now, thanks to both of you for making the distinctions that you have, as it relates to both 'word meaning' and 'practice.' I hope what has been said, by both of you, will be understood and the main points will be read in context as they have been presented.

And, with that said, I would like to lift out the following from your last post Matthew, because for any who may have missed what was said, these are most colorful threads for our tapestry:




I do think, though, that in any conversation that talks about 'spiritual practices', etc., it is important to bear in mind the distinction Between this kind of practice of keeping the hours, and a prayer rule in the traditional sense of that term in the Church.

This is because a prayer rule is seen as not primarily an aid in contemplation, but a tool for the transformation into the Eucharistic life of authentic prayer. Its chief aim is not so much the feeding of the mind but the transformation of the will. This transformation cleanses the heart; and only when the heart is open can the mind ever really be fed.

One can certainly develop a custom or habit of habitual prayer and reading for oneself; but a 'prayer rule' devised for one's self is never fully a rule in this traditional understanding (even though it may be beneficial in many other ways).



And, even by means of this most helpful clarifying/defining of terms, we are brought to a greater place of understanding when you say so well:





. . . only when the 'heart' is open can the mind ever really be fed.



To me, when I read this I think this is priceless, and what a great truth. What a most honorable and authentic Orthodox Epistemology.

And, as we relate *this* to what has been said, recently and in the past, about such things as aids to contemplation, and contemplation itself, I wonder if this speaks to something Fr. Raphael has concluded in this thread in the past when he has said in a previous discussion/question:




Which is to say that the practices of other non-western cultures may contain real insights about the reality of the human being as a psycho-somatic creature. But central to Orthodoxy is how we relate to this temple of the Holy Spirit.

I agree though that this question is very important to all of us. It comes up every time we pick up a book, listen to music or look at art which isn't purely from within the Church. It also comes up when we watch a movie or participate in anything to do with the modern media or contemporary methods of communication.

We have talked about this from time to time here at Monachos. Most seem to feel there is a real place for such things in their lives. But whether from a realistic acceptance of our own weakness or that these things really help us in our deeper spiritual lives is the question we keep coming back to with no clear answer.



I wonder if any see what I am saying here? Is it possible that we are breaking some new ground here?

Father Raphael, being the veteran of Orthodoxy (and monachos) that he is, has said, *this* is question that "we keep coming back to with no clear answer."

But, is it possible that Matthew has just answered it here today in a most conclusive way, in the affirmative?

Matthew says, "One can certainly develop a custom . . ." or, what I call a personal spiritual practice (that some may now choose to call a 'custom' for life).

And, if this personal spiritual practice that we develop, 'each as it appropriate for oneself,' does "open the 'heart' as said above, and we are brought into a true communion/participation even through such things as a cosmic liturgy, for just one example, (whether solicited or unsolicited), then how could there not be a "transformation" of the mind and a "renewal" of the mind (as spoken of in the Scriptures) which would absolutely dictate/include a transformation of the will and again simultaneously a cleansing of the 'heart.'

How could there not be?

And, as anyone who has read the New Testament knows, this is nothing new here, nothing unique, but this is "The Normal Christian Life," just as Nee has said (even if it is not the common Christian life). This is clearly the teaching of the Apostles as it relates to 'a living sacrifice,' and sometimes this only requires a greater sense of awareness in our everyday mundane life! But, at the very least it does require an honorable and authentic Orthodox epistemology which I hope is *not* in "contradistinction" to the Holy Scriptures as it relates to an 'Orthodox Renewal Theology!'

And, I realize that we all at times search for a "theoretical justification" as Owen used this term recently, and what is shared above does not mesh so well with a long and drawn out systematic step#1: Catharsis; step #2: Fotisis; and finally step #3: Theosis (although, what is shared above, does parallel perfectly the key renwal passages of the Holy Scripture).

But, now I realize that I am just preaching away here, so that means it is time to stop. But, hopefully, I am preaching to the choir here, at least somewhat . . . and hopefully as well, we have broken some 'new ground,' and directly addressed the previously long-time unanswered question of Father Raphael as well.

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Rick,

I am not certain that I follow your comments in your most recent post; nor yet that I agree with what I do take in.

I suppose my point in my previous post was primarily that personal development of a 'spiritual practice' is a rather seperate phenomenon to the practice of rules of prayer and ascetic transformation traditional to the Church. The reason I do not spend a great deal of time in threads that deal with them is because, while perhaps not 'wrong' per se, and certainly holding the potential for benefit in some ways, these are not traditional Orthodox approaches to spiritual growth. So there may be value there; but my interests lie primarily elsewhere.

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for your honest and even-handed comments. Again, point well made that what may be considered a 'custom' of life, or a personal spiritual practice, or possibly even something else by someone else, is a separate phenomenon to the practice of rules of prayer and ascetic transformation traditional to the Church. But, if I may be so bold, (and at the risk of being struck by lightening or starting another cyclone somewhere ;) . . . I am not yet certain that I agree 'fully' but, I don't think we have enought space left to launch into what I mean here. However, today, I think we do find a common ground in the thinking that there could be the potential for benefit and there may be some value in this type of 'custom.'

I know your time is limited, and your interests primarily lie elsewhere, but if you ever find yourself stuck in an airport somewhere, with time to kill, possibly you could reach for your laptop, and give the conversation between Fr. R. and myself (last Feb-Mar) a run through. Unfortunately, it seems that one does have to be in the thick of things at key points to make sense of all that is said (especially as the thread draws to a close as this one is doing).

Possibly, in the new thread "A Common Ground" we may find an opportunity to further develop what was initiated today! Again, thanks so much for the grounding/centering that you provide when you do have time to stop by.

In Christ,
Rick

PS BTW, how much more time do we have here in this thread?

[Karena Hryniuk]

Karena, do you think it is possible Irenaeus was in Canada at one point drinking the water?

I don't think Irenaeus made his way up to Canada but hopefully through the Common Ground direction of these posts all will be able to partake of those waters.

Sister In Christ,
~Karena

[Celinda Grace]

Matthew,


This is because a prayer rule is seen as not primarily an aid in contemplation, but a tool for the transformation into the Eucharistic life of authentic prayer. Its chief aim is not so much the feeding of the mind but the transformation of the will. This transformation cleanses the heart; and only when the heart is open can the mind ever really be fed.

Due to lack of familiarity I am loosing some of the complexities of the conversation between you and John.

I understand what you are saying about a prayer rule and its purpose here. But you seem to be implying that there is also another kind of prayer that aids in contemplation and/or feeds the mind. What is taught about this?

[Herman Blaydoe]

But you seem to be implying that there is also another kind of prayer that aids in contemplation and/or feeds the mind. What is taught about this

Well, "feeds the mind" is probably not quite appropriate, but it certainly helps move from the Mind to the heart, and that would be the Prayer of Jesus.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Celinda, you wrote:


I understand what you are saying about a prayer rule and its purpose here. But you seem to be implying that there is also another kind of prayer that aids in contemplation and/or feeds the mind. What is taught about this?

I think a common tendency is to conflate specific practices of the Church in popular understanding. The Church offers a wide variety of 'practices of prayer' (for lack of a better term): the liturgical prayer of the services; the situational prayer of day-to-day activity (blessings, thanksgivings, etc.); the ascetical prayer of Jesus; the practice of a rule of prayer; spontaneous prayer; and so on. These are different kinds of prayer focussed on different aspects of human life in encounter with God. Clearly all are holy, all are necessary - else the Church would not continue to prescribe them.

A difficulty common to the endeavour towards 'spiritual practice', is that in orientation it is often a deeply self-willed thing, even if that willing is holy in its orientation. I want to pray the following; this is what suits me; this is what I find effective. This is why the Church has kept the 'remit' of the prayer rule within the relationship of a spiritual father to a spiritual child: it is part of the process of transforming the will.

Other prayer, for those who keep a rule, is transformed by it. One does not seek alternatives, as the focus of this work is one that aims at transforming prayer itself.

And I might just point out that this is not the keep of monastics alone. This is the basic pattern of a rule of prayer that is the common stock of all parish life.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Matthew

I am not sure I agree fully with what you say because it seems to suggest that all of those large numbers of people without a true and gifted spiritual guide are all essentially acting under a degree of prelest.

Surely the 'ordinary' rule of devotions is not something that faithful folk do because they want to but because they are committed to finding Christ is taking up the cross.

Is it easy to pray the morning and evening Hours and the Jesus Prayer, and read the Gospel for the day, as well as fasting during the seasons? Is it something that anyone who endeavours to commit to is just indulging themselves? It seems to me that it is the moderate ascesis that someone without a guide should adopt.

This is what the Church, or at least my own tradition, expects of all Christians. A relationship with a true spiritual father will add another dimension undoubtedly, but all Orthodox know what they should be doing and can get on a do it in humility and with patience while they wait for God to provide further support for them.

If we consider that anything we do without a guide is self-willed (and there seems no reason to conclude that this must be the case) then we will hesitate to do anything.

Doing the minimum the Church lays down seems to be a very reasonable and obedient way forward. Doing more or less, I agree, without guidance would not be wise.

But I do not think we can say at the judgement, I did not fast because no-one was available to tell me how to fast. And I did not pray because no-one was available to tell me how to pray. In fact the fathers often deal with the question of what a faithful Christian should do when he does not have a true and trained guide, and it seems to me that the counsel what I describe.

Peter

[Celinda Grace]

Dear Matthew

I am not sure I agree fully with what you say because it seems to suggest that all of those large numbers of people without a true and gifted spiritual guide are all essentially acting under a degree of prelest.

Peter,

If you read the above posts you will see that spiritual father includes the parish priest you might look back over some of Father David's posts over the last few days.


Your spiritual father should be your parish priest, or the confessor to whom he sends you. In a monastic setting, your spiritual father is the one assigned to you by the monastery elders. As far as I'm concerned these are the only criteria of who is your proper and acceptable spiritual father. Should a person develop a relationship with someone else (say an experienced elder in a monastery or from Mt Athos or some similar spiritual center) who is spiritually experienced and wise, that is fine - but one should submit even this spiritual direction to the wisdom of your own spiritual father (parish priest/monastic elder) before embarking on it.


In the world we have a "spiritual father" who is our priest and regular confessor. However there are also those (often, but not always monstics) who are recognized as very experienced elders (and eldresses) in the spiritual life. They may or may not be confessors or even ordained to clerical rank but they provide spiritual guidance. ...These persons are often referred to as spiritual fathers/mothers - but this is not in the same sense as the parish priest/confessor. It is to this "class" of spiritual father/mother that the above statements and warnings about the care in choosing a spiritual father are made. It is not "required" that all Orthodox Christians have such a spiritual father or mother - but often those who are at a certain point in their spiritual lives seek out such a person. This relationship is entirely voluntary on both sides in that the spiritual father accepts a person as their spiritual child and the person accepts this elder as their spiritual father. This is different than the normal parish situation where the parish priest/confessor is given to the people as their father and the flock is given to the priest as his spiritual children.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Matthew

I am not sure I agree fully with what you say because it seems to suggest that all of those large numbers of people without a true and gifted spiritual guide are all essentially acting under a degree of prelest.

Surely the 'ordinary' rule of devotions is not something that faithful folk do because they want to but because they are committed to finding Christ is taking up the cross.

Is it easy to pray the morning and evening Hours and the Jesus Prayer, and read the Gospel for the day, as well as fasting during the seasons? Is it something that anyone who endeavours to commit to is just indulging themselves? It seems to me that it is the moderate ascesis that someone without a guide should adopt.

This is what the Church, or at least my own tradition, expects of all Christians. A relationship with a true spiritual father will add another dimension undoubtedly, but all Orthodox know what they should be doing and can get on a do it in humility and with patience while they wait for God to provide further support for them.

If we consider that anything we do without a guide is self-willed (and there seems no reason to conclude that this must be the case) then we will hesitate to do anything.

Doing the minimum the Church lays down seems to be a very reasonable and obedient way forward. Doing more or less, I agree, without guidance would not be wise.

But I do not think we can say at the judgement, I did not fast because no-one was available to tell me how to fast. And I did not pray because no-one was available to tell me how to pray. In fact the fathers often deal with the question of what a faithful Christian should do when he does not have a true and trained guide, and it seems to me that the counsel what I describe.

Peter

Dear Peter,

This seems to be a response that is primarily over-reaction without having read the context of what I wrote. My point was explicitly not along the generalising tones you've indicated: I was speaking very specifically of the practice of the rule of prayer in Christian life -- one particular type of prayer that I listed as one among many.

It also seems that you've not taken account of the context of parish integration, that was also raised.

The Church has different kinds, customs and patterns of prayer. Attempting to read them in general terms goes somewhat against the grain of their pastoral focus.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I think there is a certain false dichotomy that has appeared in Peter's latest post in this thread, which needs to be addressed. This centres around the idea that, to simplify, if all prayer is to be obedient prayer in relationship to a spiritual father and rule, then those who are not engaged in this kind of practice are engaged in a kind that is lower and essentially prideful. Hence the characterisation that it:


seems to suggest that all of those large numbers of people without a true and gifted spiritual guide are all essentially acting under a degree of prelest.The difficulty here is that there is an attempt to understand all prayer under the same 'umbrella' -- to attempt comparisons of different kinds of prayer as conformable to the same set of standards and guides. This leads to a kind of false-comparison with other types of prayer, e.g.:


Is it easy to pray the morning and evening Hours and the Jesus Prayer, and read the Gospel for the day, as well as fasting during the seasons? Is it something that anyone who endeavours to commit to is just indulging themselves? It seems to me that it is the moderate ascesis that someone without a guide should adopt.Part of the great richness of prayer in the Orthodox tradition is that it is not a monolithic reality, which is a point I was trying to express earlier. 'Prayer' is not simply a generic concept, or a one-fits-all practice. There are distinct and very different types and practices of prayer within the Church. I mentioned a few of these earlier, but to repeat and expand a still quite incomplete list one has the liturgical prayer of the services; the situational prayer of day-to-day activity (blessings at meals, thanksgivings, etc.); the ascetical prayer of Jesus; the practice of a rule of prayer; spontaneous prayer; keeping of the daily offices and hours; canons and akathists; prayers on study and reading; etc.

But the fact that these are all prayer, as means of encounter with God and the transformation of self, decidedly does not mean that the same outlines and guidance on their practice will stand. Differing types of prayer have different forms, guidelines and practices, because they are pastorally and ascetically distinct. The use differing tools to accomplish different things.

To raise the practice of keeping the hours, reading the Gospel, fasting, etc., in a comparison with the practice of a rule of prayer as it has been traditionally understood in Orthodoxy, blurrs precisely this distinction. As I wrote a few posts above on exactly this:


I do think, though, that in any conversation that talks about 'spiritual practices', etc., it is important to bear in mind the distinction between this kind of practice of keeping the hours, and a prayer rule in the traditional sense of that term in the Church. A prayer rule is undivorcably part of a relationship between spiritual child and spiritual father, and is first and foremost a rule of obedience: heeding a thing given. The form of a rule varies widely (since it is by nature always pastorally given, and thus personal); but tends to involve far more prostrations, canons, readings, repetitions of the Prayer, etc., than it does keeping of ecclesial hours or other services (since normally it accompanies these). In lay parish life, this is of course much mediated -- but the general idea, of a prayer rule being a given thing, to which the response is obedience rather than agreement, remains.This type of prayer is specific, it has certain aims in mind and certain forms that have come down through history. It is not simply 'prayer' in a generic sense, but a specific type of ascetical endeavour. This causes me to question the following response:


If we consider that anything we do without a guide is self-willed (and there seems no reason to conclude that this must be the case) then we will hesitate to do anything.I think the difficulty here comes precisely in attempting to generalise the context and practice of this type of prayer out to all prayer as a whole. If that is done, Peter is certainly correct. But this must not be done. It is to reduce the pastoral and transfigurative nature of prayer, which is bound up in the variety of its means and focusses, making it into a general concept with a 'common guidebook'.

Within the tradition of the proper rule of prayer, which is a specific tradition of prayer with its own aims, the nature of this prayer is one exercised in obedience, receiving a rule given by another (the spiritual father). Within this type and context of prayer, the self-crafting of a 'rule' is a hindrance, rather than a fulfilment or advancement, because it crafts the prayer around the will, rather than receiving the prayer to transform the will. Within this type of prayer, which is a unique heritage of Orthodoxy.

To generalise these patterns out to all of prayer certainly distorts them; but more dangerously, it diminishes the true breadth and multi-faceted nature of prayer itself. As prayer is not a one-type-in-all-contexts monolith, so are the instructions for prayer not singular. Which is why the following comment, valid in its own right, doesn't really fit into this type of distinction:


But I do not think we can say at the judgement, I did not fast because no-one was available to tell me how to fast. And I did not pray because no-one was available to tell me how to pray.A rule of prayer is not the only type of prayer. What should and should not be done within this context must not be generalised out to what should and should not be done in others.

I originally raised this issue here, as a fair amount of the discussion was on on 'spiritual practices' and forming one's own 'rules', etc. One of the tendencies is to perceive the tradition of a prayer rule in Orthodoxy as a kind of craft-it-yourself conglamoration of favourite prayers. But if one is genuinely to attempt an understanding of this practice as it has formed part of the tradition of the Church, the unique character of the rule in its delivery and adherance should be understood.

INXC, Matthew