Reading group: St Innocent, 'The Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven'

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

An idea has been proposed to me, which I think has some distance in it, for an 'activity' of the Discussion Community: namely, a 'reading group', with the aim of selecting a patristic text (from any period in the history of the fathers) which members will read through together, in small pieces, discussing the text here in the forum.

I think this sounds an interesting idea, and am keen to give it a go, if others are interested. I thought perhaps a good text with which to begin would me a more modern contribution to the patristic heritage: St Innocent's The Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven (http://www.monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven). This is a short work in small sections, which makes it a good practical 'first go' at a reading & discussion group; and its content is catechetical and formative, which sets it in a good theme.

If others are interested, I might propose we begin this week with the Introduction - just the first section of the text at the top of the page. I will divide out the remainder and put dates and sections on the Community Calendar (http://www.monachos.net/forum/calendar.php), so people can easily find which section of the text is being looked at. It seems logical to take quite small portions of the text at a time, so as not to impose a reading load that people will not be able to follow.

Please do let me know if others think this an interesting project.

INXC, Matthew

[John]

Yes please! This would be great!

Yours,
John

[Nina]

Yes, it is an excellent idea and project with a pert approach. I like it.

[Father Anthony]

Matthew et al,

I believe this a wonderful idea for the discussion community. Many times we read things and miss some points that are being made or misinterpret them. A discussion on books such as Saint Innocent's is a wonderful start and may help different members pick up on the points missed.

Unfortunately, because of prior ministry obligations I will be traveling from the 15th of this month to 1st of August. Follow that by starting to process materials used and collected and catching up in my office, I will not be able to participate in the first book's discussion. I do promise to be part of the next book's discussion.

Wishing all a fruitful and spiritually enlightening discussion.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Paul Cowan]

Matthew,

I would like to add my concurence to the others. I have little resources here at the house to read the Fathers and hearing a true understanding is what I think Monachos is all about.

I would request on behalf of those of us and some lurkers that need "milk" more than others, at a miminum, alternate simpler texts and catachumin type works in with the more profound works for you "meat eaters".

Not that we can't necessarily keep up, but sometimes we can't. Thanks


I Corinthians 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.


Or something to this effect.

Paul

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

The responses received here, coupled with the Private Messages I've received, make it sound like this would be a good thing to try out. As summer is a fairly quiet time, it is also a good period to test out something new, as the numbers are a bit smaller.

So we'll begin, as indicated, with St Innocent's The Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven (http://www.monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven), with the Introduction - just the first section of the text. This is a very short passage, so it should not be too onerous on anyone!

I've updated the first few weeks' reading plan onto the Calendar (http://www.monachos.net/forum/calendar.php), so you can easily see which section we're reading, and join in.

To join in the reading group, simply read the indicated passage during the week, and make comments / ask questions in this thread. Questions and comments can range widely, but perhaps some starting questions to get the mind thinking:
Who is the author, and what is the context of his writing?
What is the main purpose of the text, as set out in this Introduction?
What is the nature of 'happiness' as St Innocent talks about it here?
What are the implications of his analogy of material things, and the example of 'household utensils'?
What is the relationship of the 'kingdom of God' and 'communication with God' in this passage?
What of the incarnation?Feel free to comment on these issues; or to raise questions of your own, note themes, comment on links with other patristic sources, practical issues, etc.

INXC, Matthew

[John]

Hi everyone.

I guess I'll be the first to give some thoughts about the text by St. Innocent.

I thought his comments about being created for happiness were very interesting. He says:

"Every individual instinctively strives for happiness. This desire has been implanted in our nature by the Creator Himself, and therefore it is not sinful. But it is important to understand that in this temporary life it is impossible to find full happiness, because that comes from God and cannot be attained without Him. Only He, who is the ultimate Good and the source of all good, can quench our thirst for happiness."

I don't often hear the Fathers talking about "happiness," so I thought this was an interesting word-choice. Do you think he means contentment? How is it related to "blessedness"?

It's interesting that this is the way he begins the whole tract!

Yours,
John

[John]

Hello again.

I also think the outline of the introduction is interesting. He sets up his thoughts like this:

A: We are created for eternal life, not for a lesser "animal" life but for "the high purpose to live with God."

B: We all desire happiness (maybe as part of this "higher purpose"?) which can only come from God.

C: Material things won't ever bring this happiness. They are vanities.

D: Deep down inside we know that this (C) is true, with a gut-level feeling. We just know that we need something more than the world.

E: Even though we know we need something more, our sin prevents us from obtaining it. So Jesus became man to save us and make it possible.

F: This book will explain how He did this.

And I have a question: St. Innocent talks about (in D) how we all know, inside, that the world doesn't satisfy us. He says that "in the depths of our subconscious something reminds us that we are just wanderers on the earth." What is this "something"?

Yours,
John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Following on from John's comments about 'happiness', I wonder if anyone has the original Russian of the text available? It is not uncommon that translators render as 'happiness' the same term that is also 'blessedness' - a phenomenon seen, for example, in some translation of the beatitudes as 'Happy are you when men shall revile you and persecute you...'.

I'd be curious to know the Russian behind the 'happiness' in this translation.

INXC, Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

I don't often hear the Fathers talking about "happiness," so I thought this was an interesting word-choice. Do you think he means contentment? How is it related to "blessedness"?

Looks to me like he's using "happiness" and "satisfaction" almost as synonyms, with "true" or "full" or "total" happiness being a lasting (ultimately eternal) satisfaction.

I don't think it's quite the same as contentment, but close. I think of the words this way (someone correct me if there's a normal Orthodox understanding of them which differs from mine, or if the original language -- if it wasn't English -- has different conotations):

Contentment = treating current situation/state as good (or at least acceptable); not striving for something more or different.
Satisfaction = state of fulfillment of desires.

So, satisfaction would bring contentment, but contentment can exist without satisfaction.

[John]

Contentment = treating current situation/state as good (or at least acceptable); not striving for something more or different.
Satisfaction = state of fulfillment of desires.

So, satisfaction would bring contentment, but contentment can exist without satisfaction.

Thanks Mike. That gives me something to think about. But maybe it's satisfying to be content?

Yours,
John

[Herman Blaydoe]

Seems to me that we should never be satisfied with being content. When seeking the infinite, can we ever be satisfied?

From an old "Calvin and Hobbes" comic:

Panel 1: "Here I am, happy and content"

Panel 2: "...but not euphoric."

Panel 3: "So now I am no longer content. I'm unhappy, my day is ruined"

Panel 4: "I need to stop thinking while I'm ahead."

DISCLAIMER: The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of contexts may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

[Father David Moser]

I'd be curious to know the Russian behind the 'happiness' in this translation.



The Russian can be found online here (http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/russian/king_r.htm)

Likewise the English can be found online here (http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/english/king_e.htm)

Fr David Moser

[Michael Stickles]

When seeking the infinite, can we ever be satisfied?

Wow. That one sentence neatly summarizes most of the Introduction.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I am neither a native Russian speaker nor very proficient in the language. But still it seems clear that the original does say, "Each man aspires to happiness." Interestingly there is nothing about "instinctively" in the text itself. I suppose it was added because of the context & to not lead to any confusion.

Anyway- I think that happiness in St Innocent's time & place means a kind of contentedness with what life provides.

In Christ- Fr Raphael





The Russian can be found online here (http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/russian/king_r.htm)

Likewise the English can be found online here (http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/english/king_e.htm)

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

The Russian can be found online here (http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/russian/king_r.htm)

Likewise the English can be found online here (http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/english/king_e.htm)

Thank you for the link to the Russian text, Father David. For the sake of common reading, I think it's probably advisable that we stick to the same English edition - namely that here in the web site, as at the link at the top of this thread: simply for the sake of common phrasing, text division, etc.

INXC, Matthew

[Theopesta]

We were created to live on earth unlike animals who die and disappear with time, but with the high purpose to live with God — not for a hundred years or so — but for eternity!

For animals, they seek after the temporary, corporal happiness; It is normal and natural for them. However, it differs for human being. He/She instinctively, automatically, unthinkingly, and involuntary implanted in his/her inner depth, the ultimate meaning of happiness.

In One Christ
P.S. please, forgive me for my poor language

[Celinda Grace]

We were created to live on earth unlike animals who die and disappear with time, but with the high purpose to live with God — not for a hundred years or so — but for eternity!
I think that one thing we have to be aware of in our day and age is that in a world where many live like Solomon with every earthly pleasure available to them, they have discovered that these earthly things don't satisfy.

However, they are not truly seeking eternal life, what they end up seeking is simply a less animal and more spiritual type of happiness, but still apart from God. This is more dangerous then animal pleasures because it is higher and therefore can bring a more complete contentment without needing God.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Celinda, you wrote:


However, they are not truly seeking eternal life, what they end up seeking is simply a less animal and more spiritual type of happiness, but still apart from God. This is more dangerous then animal pleasures because it is higher and therefore can bring a more complete contentment without needing God.

This is right at the heart of the modern-day fascination with all things 'New Age' and 'spiritual', in that debased idea of the term as adequate or meaningful without the Spirit. I appreciate very much your definition of something sought that is 'more spiritual', i.e. (in my thought) more ethereal, less bound to the obviously-disappointing gains of materialistic happiness; yet which still refuses to set the context of happiness and blessing as one centred in God.

This seems to be what St Innocent is getting at in his phrase:
'It is important to understand that in this temporary life it is impossible to find full happiness, because that comes from God and cannot be attained without Him. Only He, who is the ultimate Good and the source of all good, can quench our thirst for happiness.'
What is particularly interesting is that, when focussed on this relation to God (what he calls elsewhere in the introduction man's 'personal communication with God'), not only the heavenly but even the earthly becomes a cause for true happiness and joy - witness the restored relationship with creation of so many of the saints.

INXC, Matthew

[Celinda Grace]

It seems that in the depth of our subconscious something reminds us that we are just wanderers on this earth and that our true happiness is not here but there, in that other and better world known as Paradise or the Heavenly Kingdom. Let man own the whole world and everything that is in it, yet all this will interest him for no more than a short period, while the immortal soul, thirsting for personal communication with God, will remain unsatisfied.


What is particularly interesting is that, when focussed on this relation to God (what he calls elsewhere in the introduction man's 'personal communication with God'), not only the heavenly but even the earthly becomes a cause for true happiness and joy - witness the restored relationship with creation of so many of the saints.

This makes me ask what is the secret of their joy in creation while others remain unsatisfied with it. From my reading I would say that we tend to operate backwards. Our deepest and most vital thirst is for God but because we do not want to deal with the percieved requirements of the relationship because of intrinsic rebellion and blindness to God's love we attempt to satisfy our thirst with either material or psuedospiritual goods.

I think the saints, instead of trying to satisfy that thirst through their own efforts opened themselves to God to let Him satisfy them.

They learned this secret.

no one through their own efforts can overcome the evil within themselves and attain communion with God We cannot by our own efforts satisfy ourselves.

I don't remember where I first came across it but I love the analogy of the open hand. When our hand is open we can both receive and give, but in grabbing onto something we must close our hand and therein we can no longer receive.

[Rick Henry]

Dear All,

The recent trend in this discussion covers a ground that I have a high level of interest in (viz. the expression/concept 'joy in creation' as it is used here). And, as usual, a pattern is followed whereby we begin sharing things based on 'my experience' and 'my reading.' And, then the distinction is made between such things as Good/good and Spiritual/psuedo-spiritual, and eventually there might even be the suggestion of such concepts as a solicited encounter with the divine and an unsolicited encounter with the divine.

However, when it comes time 'to prove,' 'to try,' 'to examine' (dokimazein!) as we read in the Holy Scriptures, conversations like this seem to just fade away . . .

Possibly, we can cut to the chase here on this one, and ask, once again, in the hope of moving forward:


Who determines what is Spiritual and what is psuedo-spiritual
in the life of the disciple of Christ?



Your fellow learner in Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

I doubt it is any one person's job, other than perhaps the moderator, to control the direction of the conversation. Just let it go where it wills...it's a good spiritual lesson to give up control.

[Rick Henry]

Owen--possibly as you know from past experience, none of us can control the conversation here, it has a life of its own. But, maybe my question is one that you would like to comment on here. I know that of late you usually just make a comment and then walk away, but I really wonder what you think:


Who determines what is Spiritual and what is psuedo-spiritual
in the life of the disciple of Christ?

I did my best in your Spiritual IQ thread, what do you think about this Spiritual /psuedo-spiritual dichotomy that is being presented, it seems to be a reoccurring theme here.

[Rick Henry]

. . . and specifically, the question is: Who determines IT/it?

[Nina]

This makes me ask what is the secret of their joy in creation while others remain unsatisfied with it.


Dear Celinda,

Saint Symeon the New Theologian says:


"It is therefore right here and now that, as the whole God-inspired Scripture says, the festival takes place" (p.159)

"The reign of Christ begins NOW" (p.137)

"As many therefore as are the children of the light also become sons of the Day which is to come, and are enabled to walk decently as in the day. The Day of the Lord will never come upon them, because they are already in it forever and continually." (p.146)The festival, reign, light that St. Symeon mentions are equal to the joy, happiness that St. Innocent talks about. Because only by participating in the Kingdom of God we find the genuine happiness. And according to St. Symeon the Kingdom of God is now for those who are still alive, but have achieved deification, who have the illumined mind and illumined nous. If one does not become one with God in this life, one can not become one with God in the Kingdom to come, as we see from the writings of the Holy Fathers. And as Elder Porphyrios says this joy stems from the 'divine eros':


"Christ is joy, the true light, happiness. Christ is our hope. Our relation to Christ is love, eros, passion, enthusiasm, longing for the divine. Christ is everything. He is our love. He is the object of our desire. This passionate longing for Christ is a love that can not be taken away. This is where joy flows from. [...]

Christ is Paradise, my children. What is Paradise? It is Christ. Paradise begins here and now. It is exactly the same: those who experience Christ here on earth, experience Paradise. [...]

If you are in love, you can live amid the hustle and bustle of the city center and not be aware that you are in the city center. You see neither cars nor people nor anything else. Within yourself you are with the person you love. You experience her, you take delight in her, she inspires you. Are these things not true? Imagine that the person you love is Christ. Christ is in your mind, Christ is in your heart, Christ is in your whole being, Christ is everywhere. Christ is life, the source of life, the source of joy, the source of the true light, everything. Whoever loves Christ and other people truly lives life. [...]

When you find Christ, you are satisfied, you desire nothing else, you find peace. You become a different person. You live everywhere, wherever Christ is. You live in the stars, in infinity, in heaven with angels, with the saints, on earth with people, with plants, with animals, with everyone and everything. When there is love for Christ, loneliness disappears. You are peaceable, joyous, full. Neither melancholy, nor illness, nor pressure, nor anxiety, nor depression, nor hell." (pp. 96-99)

Both Saint Symeon and Elder Porphyrios continue their discourses by giving examples of the martyrs who even during their martyrdom which entailed many tortures, they had divine joy and love, that made them insensitive to all the pains their torturers inflicted upon them:


"This love, this passion and this enthusiasm lead even to martyrdom. They make you sacrifice yourself and disregard all else. You fear nothing and may retreat far from the world into caves and holes in the earth. The saint who inspired me, Saint John the Hut-dweller, had this divine madness. And the saints and martyrs who were filled with this divine madness didn't hold back before any impediment, they rushed with joy and enthusiasm to martyrdom. He who loves little, gives little. He who loves more, gives more. And he who loves beyond measure, what has he to give? He gives himself!

On account of their love for Christ the saints did not feel the pains of martyrdom, however intense they were. Recall the Three Youths in the fiery furnace. As they sung hymns and praises to God, they were cooled in the midst of the furnace. Remember Saint Demetrios, Saint George, Saint Catherine, Saint Barbara, Saint Paraskevi, and the Forty Martyrs in the frozen lake. A cloud of witnesses as Saint Paul the Apostle says." (p.103)Quotes from:

On the Mystical Life - The Church and the Last Things by Saint Symeon the New Theologion

Wounded by Love - The Life and the Wisdom of Elder Porphyrios

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen--possibly as you know from past experience, none of us can control the conversation here, it has a life of its own. But, maybe my question is one that you would like to comment on here. I know that of late you usually just make a comment and then walk away, but I really wonder what you think:


Who determines what is Spiritual and what is psuedo-spiritual
in the life of the disciple of Christ?


As this thread is a reading group, exploring what is written in this text, I think it best not to wander too far off it. Let the text lead the thread. You'll see that St Innocent himself talks about just this kind of question in due course; but (perhaps very intentionally) not before he talks about some other things.

INXC, Matthew

[Nina]

And I have a question: St. Innocent talks about (in D) how we all know, inside, that the world doesn't satisfy us. He says that "in the depths of our subconscious something reminds us that we are just wanderers on the earth." What is this "something"?
Yours,
John

Dear John,

That "something" is a feeling of incompleteness. That feeling of incompleteness is when one dwells solely in his 'biological hypostasis'*. Only when we develop our 'ecclesiastical hypostasis'* our identity is linked to eschatology. This will-be hypostasis is characterized by Zizioulas as sacramental, or eucharistic hypostasis:


"The ecclesial existence of man, his hypostasization in a eucharistic manner, thus constitutes a pledge, and "earnest," of the final victory of man over death. This victory will be a victory not of nature. But of the person, and consequently not a victory of man in his self-sufficiency but of man in his hypostatic union with God, that is, a victory of Christ as the man of patristic Christology" (p.64) Being as Communion


Thus Saints achieve from here the fullness of genuine happiness, not prelest. This completeness and fullness of genuine happiness is theosis, which Saints achieve during their earthly life. As Saint Symeon the Theologian and other Holy Fathers say: "The Kingdom of God begins now".

*These terms are coined by Metropolitan of Pergamos Zizioulas.

[John]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for all the great comments! I'm trying to digest them all. Can't wait to get to the next section of the text!

Yours,
John

[M.C. Steenberg]

This makes me ask what is the secret of their joy in creation while others remain unsatisfied with it. From my reading I would say that we tend to operate backwards. Our deepest and most vital thirst is for God but because we do not want to deal with the percieved requirements of the relationship because of intrinsic rebellion and blindness to God's love we attempt to satisfy our thirst with either material or psuedospiritual goods.

This seems to be precisely St Innocent's point: that there is an intrinsic longing for that happiness that comes only in communion with God, in-built into the very being of the human person; and yet the rebellion of sin that causes a constant turning from this 'subsconsciously known' reality, towards baser sources of perceived happiness.

With respect of 'the secret of their joy in creation while others remain unsatisfied with it', it seems that the issue stems precisely from seeing creation either as an independent reality, a source of good and joy that 'can be attained without God' (to paraphrase St Innocent); or as a reality intrinsically communicative of God himself, in which one finds joy and happiness through creation's identification of and participation in the goodness of God.

We should probably bear in mind that St Innocent spent most of his adult life in one of the most beautiful parts of the world: Alaska. I do not know of any stories of his relationship to creation as such; but it has always intrigued me how his writing reflects a stubbornness against finding satisfaction in even the most glorious element of creation. It is 'only he, who is the ultimate Good and the source of all good, who can quench our thirst for happiness' - and only when man is first and foremost in communion with this God that the true worth of the creation becomes visible and transformative at its fullest value.

There is a quite remarkable akathistos hymn 'In Praise of God's Creation' (http://monachos.net/library/Akathist_in_Praise_of_God%27s_Creation) by Metropolitan Tryphon (secularly Prince Boris Petrovich Turkestanov, d.1934), written about a century after the time of St Innocent, which contains a few refrains that seem relevant:
From Kontakion 4: How filled with sweetness are those whose thoughts dwell on you: how life-giving your holy Word; to speak with you is more soothing than anointing with oil, sweeter than the honeycomb. Praying to you refreshes us and gives us wings: our hearts overflow with warmth; a majesty filled with wisdom permeates nature and all of life! Where you are not, there is only emptiness. Where you are, the soul is filled with abundance, and its song resounds like a torrent of life: Alleluia!

From Ikos 12: How poor is my praise before you! I have not heard the song of the Cherubim, a joy reserved to the souls on high, but I know the praises nature sings to you. In winter, I see how in the moonlit silence the whole earth offers you prayer, wrapped in its white mantle of snow, sparking like diamonds. I see the rising sun rejoice in you, and I hear the chorus of birds raise a hymn of glory. I hear the forest mysteriously rustling in your honour, the winds sing of your, the waters murmur and the processions of stars proclaim you as they move in harmony for ever in the depths of infinite space. What is my poor worship? All nature obeys you, I do not; yet while I live, I see your love. I long to thank you, pray to you and call upon your Name. These refrains, as so much else of that hymn, seem to reflect the indication of St Innocent: that in God one finds the perspective that makes what is otherwise of a lower purpose, into something prophetic and evangelical. This is much in line with what you wrote, Celinda:


I think the saints, instead of trying to satisfy that thirst through their own efforts opened themselves to God to let Him satisfy them.INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

For those interested in knowing a bit more about the author of our text, St Innocent (Veniaminov) of Alaska, the following might prove helpful:
Article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Innocent_of_Alaska) (which, despite the great weaknesses of Wikipedia in general, does seem to be a fairly good article on this topic)
Article on the web site of the Orthodox Church in America (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oca.org%2FHSbioinnocent.asp%3 FSID%3D7&ei=5KqYRrzuE4GiwAHRobmrCQ&usg=AFQjCNF64BwV7yZ1VfcxK4nJeXjEdvVMEA&sig2=-v0GTZ590sy8LA47pQ5cZA)
Article on Orthodox Wiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Innocent_of_Alaska) (this article contains an icon depicting St Innocent holding a copy of our text, The Way into the Kingdom of Heaven)A number of icons of St Innocent can be found here (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/i/saintsi.htm#ynk05).

The liturgical commemoration of St Innocent includes the following troparia and kontakia:

Troparion (Tone 4)
O Holy Father Innocent In obedience to the will of God You accepted dangers and tribulations Bringing many peoples to the knowledge of truth. You showed us the way, Now by your prayers help lead us into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Troparion (Tone 2)
You evangelized the northern people of America and Asia, Proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to the natives in their own tongues. O holy hierarch Father Innocent, Enlightener of Alaska and all America, whose ways were ordered by the Lord, Pray to Him for the salvation of our souls in His Heavenly Kingdom!
Kontakion (Tone 2)
A true celebration of the providence and grace of God Is your life, O holy father Innocent, Apostle to our land. In hardships and dangers you toiled for the Gospel's sake And God delivered and preserved you unharmed. From obscurity He highly exalted you as an example That the Lord truly guides a man in the way he should go.
Kontakion (Tone 2)
Your life, O holy father Innocent, Apostle to our Land, Proclaims the dispensation and grace of God! For laboring in dangers and hardships for the Gospel of Christ You were kept unharmed and exalted in humility. Pray that He may guide our steps in the way we should go.
INXC, Matthew

[Theopesta]

He revealed to people that all their evil lies in sin and that no one through their own efforts can overcome the evil within themselves and attain communion with God


Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to this earth in order to return to us our lost capacity to spend eternity in the blissful presence of God.

So, Christianity not a religion, It's the return to the normal way which is in harmony with our original creation.

Christianity, as a heritable religion, might be lost in hardships.
In One Christ

[Celinda Grace]

Every individual instinctively strives for happiness. This desire has been implanted in our nature by the Creator Himself, and therefore it is not sinful. But it is important to understand that in this temporary life it is impossible to find full happiness, because that comes from God and cannot be attained without Him. Only He, who is the ultimate Good and the source of all good, can quench our thirst for happiness.


He revealed to people that all their evil lies in sin and that no one through their own efforts can overcome the evil within themselves and attain communion with God.

It seems Nina and I are the only women on this thread right now but in case their are others that wander by, I thought I would share my thoughts. Anyway we all have people we deeply care for.

As I was meditating on Mary this morning and the fact that she was faced with watching her Son be crucified, I thought about the fact that mothers in particular seek, maybe even more then their own happiness, the happiness of their children. Often it is hard for mothers to come to grips with the fact that their children will never find full happiness in this life. We try to protect our children from the realities of sin and often get drawn into the trap of trying to be God in their lives, trying to be the sole source of their happiness. Or we put all our effort into helping them be successful and happy in this life rather then looking beyond that to the struggles necessary for them to attain their own salvation and communion with God.

We think that we are being unselfish when putting so much effort into trying to give our children a pleasant life, but in reality we do this because our own happiness is tied up so much our children's happiness.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

With the new week, we can now move on past the introduction to the first main section of the document.

As such This week we are reading the first main section after the introduction, entitled The Benefits the Lord Jesus Christ Has Granted Us (http://www.monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven#sect1).

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

While having a read through section 1 ('The benefits the Lord Jesus Christ has granted us' (http://www.monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven#sect1)), the following things caught my eye as possible points of interest for discussion:
In the first paragraph, St Innocent uses the phrase, 'the benefits given us by our Lord Jesus Christ'; what does he mean by this term, 'benefits'?
This section/chapter is essentially a discussion on the first sin of humanity and its consequences. In the second paragraph, St Innocent speaks of humankind in Eden having been in 'the most vital relationship' with God, by which he therefore enjoyed 'total happiness'. How does this relate to the thought of some of the fathers, that Adam and Eve's state in paradise was one of expectation for growth and change?
In this chapter, St Innocent uses both terms: 'happiness' and 'blessedness'. Is there a distinction?
What does it mean to say, with respect of Adam, 'his memory, intellect, and all other faculties were in harmony and were constantly being perfected'?
What does one make of St Innocent's characterisation of Adam's sin: that he 'took pleasure in the taste of the forbidden fruit'?
He writes that Adam blamed his wife, and that she made excuses, and 'so it was that sin became a part of human nature, deeply injuring it'. This is fairly different from some other writers (e.g. St Irenaeus of Lyons, who wrote that Eve was conveying the truth). Is this a doctrine of a 'fallen nature'?
One of the most interesting phrases in the chapter for me is this: 'The existing communion with the Maker was cut and the blessedness lost. Having lost Paradise within himself, Adam became unworthy of the external Paradise and was therefore banished from it.' What to make of this?
What are the implications of St Innocent's discussion of the 'darkening of Adam's soul'?
What are the implications of his discussion of the transformation of nature after humanity's sin and failure to repent?
He writes, 'No man, even the most talented and powerful, nor all of mankind in unison, could ever restore what Adam lost when he sinned in Eden.' Why?
Can one see liturgical references in St Innocent's comments on the redeeming nature of the Son's offering to the world?
How does he see Christ's life, passion, resurrection and work as redeeming sinful humanity?I hope this gives people ample food for thought! It's a wonderful section of the text.

INXC, Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

He writes that Adam blamed his wife, and that she made excuses, and 'so it was that sin became a part of human nature, deeply injuring it'. This is fairly different from some other writers (e.g. St Irenaeus of Lyons, who wrote that Eve was conveying the truth). Is this a doctrine of a 'fallen nature'?

Curious as to where in Irenaeus' writings he said that, so I could see the context. Conveying the truth and making excuses can be entirely compatible, depending on the presentation of the truth. All that needs to be done is to emphasize certain things ("The serpent deceived me") while downplaying or omitting others (the admission "I ate" comes only after claiming deception, and she never says "I sinned" or "I was wrong", let alone "forgive me, Lord").

What I find fascinating here is the difference from the normal emphasis I've seen regarding the Fall.


When God appeared to Adam right after he had sinned, Adam, instead of repenting and promising obedience henceforth, began to justify himself and to blame his wife. Eve in turn blamed the serpent for everything. And so it was that sin became a part of human nature, deeply injuring it because of the lack of repentance of Adam and Eve. The existing communion with the Maker was cut and the blessedness lost. Having lost Paradise within himself, Adam became unworthy of the external Paradise and was therefore banished from it.

Innocent seems to be saying (or at least implying) that it was not the sin that fractured their communion with God as much as it was the lack of repentance, and that immediate repentance could have restored their communion with God, and prevented sin from becoming part of human nature.

The idea seems to be that sin, allowed into a human nature not designed to receive or shelter it, would be toxic, injuring it just as an acid spill injures skin. If washed off quickly by repentance, the injury can be avoided (or at least lessened). Without the washing of repentance, though, that nature becomes damaged and needs healing. Maybe that is the point of Hebrews 10 - the old sacrifices could wash the acid of sin off, but not heal the wounds already made (and because of the Fall we all come with a pre-wounded nature); only through Christ's sacrifice is healing possible.

I suppose this could be called a doctrine of a "fallen nature", though "wounded nature" seems more accurate (maybe instead of "the Fall" I should be calling it "the Wound").

[M.C. Steenberg]

He writes that Adam blamed his wife, and that she made excuses, and 'so it was that sin became a part of human nature, deeply injuring it'. This is fairly different from some other writers (e.g. St Irenaeus of Lyons, who wrote that Eve was conveying the truth). Is this a doctrine of a 'fallen nature'?


Curious as to where in Irenaeus' writings he said that, so I could see the context. Conveying the truth and making excuses can be entirely compatible, depending on the presentation of the truth.

Here is Irenaeus' comment of which I was thinking, from his On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called (i.e. 'Against heresies'), 3.23.5. Speaking of Adam and Eve's behaviour after their sin, he contrasts it with the behaviour of Cain after slaying his brother, Abel - behaviour he characterises as unrepentant, deceitful, and in every wise an attempt to 'pass the buck' (a good Americanism) to an other. But of Adam and Eve, Irenaeus writes:
"The case of Adam, however, had no analogy with this, but was altogether different. For, having been beguiled by another under the pretext of immortality, he is immediately seized with terror, and hides himself; not as if he were able to escape from God; but, in a state of confusion at having transgressed His command, he feels unworthy to appear before and to hold converse with God. Now, 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom' (Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 9:10); the sense of sin leads to repentance, and God bestows His compassion upon those who are penitent. For Adam showed his repentance by his conduct, through means of the girdle which he fashioned, covering himself with fig-leaves, while there were many other leaves, which would have irritated his body in a less degree. He, however, adopted a dress conformable to his disobedience, being awed by the fear of God; and resisting the erring, the lustful propensity of his flesh (since he had lost his natural disposition and child-like mind, and had come to the knowledge of evil things), he girded a bridle of continence upon himself and his wife, fearing God, and waiting for His coming, and indicating, as it were, some such thing as follows: Inasmuch as, he says, I have by disobedience lost that robe of sanctity which I had from the Spirit, I do now also acknowledge that I am deserving of a covering of this nature, which affords no gratification, but which gnaws and frets the body. And he would no doubt have retained this clothing for ever, thus humbling himself, if God, who is merciful, had not clothed them with tunics of skins instead of fig-leaves. For this purpose, too, God interrogates them, that the blame might light upon the woman; and again, He interrogates her, that she might convey the blame to the serpent. For she related what had occurred. 'The serpent', says she, 'beguiled me, and I did eat' (Genesis 3:13). But He put no question to the serpent; for He knew that he had been the prime mover in the guilty deed; but He pronounced the curse upon him in the first instance, that it might fall upon man with a mitigated rebuke. For God detested him who had led man astray, but by degrees, and little by little, He showed compassion to him who had been beguiled."
The italics in the above are my own drawing of emphasis to things I think are relevant to your very interesting comments, Mike. There at the end, you can see St Irenaeus' conviction that God interrogates Eve, intending that she rightly and properly ('for she related what had occurred') relay proper responsibility to the devil, who is the one primarily at fault in the transgression, as Irenaeus understands it.

Earlier in the texts, there are a number of indications of Irenaeus views on repentance. One can see the different focus he places on certain acts than St Innocent in our text: he sees Adam's behaviour after the transgression as primarily characterised by his repentance, whereas for St Innocent: 'Adam, instead of repenting and promising obedience henceforth, began to justify himself and to blame his wife. Eve in turn blamed the serpent for everything.'


What I find fascinating here is the difference from the normal emphasis I've seen regarding the Fall.

Innocent seems to be saying (or at least implying) that it was not the sin that fractured their communion with God as much as it was the lack of repentance, and that immediate repentance could have restored their communion with God, and prevented sin from becoming part of human nature.

The idea that it is not the sin itself (i.e. the eating of the fruit, or even the violation of a code of conduct) that is the tragedy of Eden, but the attitude surrounding that transgression and its enactment, is actually fairly standard in much of the patristic corpus. In our text, St Innocent writes, as you've already noted:
"And so it was that sin became a part of human nature, deeply injuring it because of the lack of repentance of Adam and Eve."
Here is Theophilus of Antioch (mid-second century) on the nature of the transgression:
"The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree, as some think, but the disobedience, which had death in it. For there was nothing else in the fruit than only knowledge;. but knowledge is good when one uses it discreetly. But Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily." (To Autolycus, 2.25)
INXC, Matthew

[Kyrill Bolton]

Matthew I feel that I am back in school writing my homework in response to your questions. I hope I have more discipline when I attempt to respond to some of your (excellent) questions.


In this chapter, St Innocent uses both terms: 'happiness' and 'blessedness'. Is there a distinction? From the introduction we see that St. Innocent is using the word happiness to be an individual self-actuated and psychological experience. In the second paragraph of this section he writes, "...He created Adam blessed also, and this blessedness or beatitude was meant to increase in him day by day." I read this to mean that the state of blessedness is a gift of God, sometimes bestowed upon some men. To restate: happiness is a psychological state that I try create for myself while blessedness is a ontological state or state of being given by God.


One of the most interesting phrases in the chapter for me is this: 'The existing communion with the Maker was cut and the blessedness lost. Having lost Paradise within himself, Adam became unworthy of the external Paradise and was therefore banished from it.' What to make of this?I take this to mean that there was a physical Paradise i.e. the Garden where Adam suffered neither heat nor cold, etc and an internal one, i.e. the nous (or maybe the entire soul). The internal one being the relationship with our maker. St. Innocent stating that Adam became unworthy of the external Paradise is saying that Adam's action was the prime cause of his exile. I would take this to mean that we can't enter into (or stay) in the holy of holies if we are have unrepented sin before us.
_______________________

The question that St. Innocent raised that I find scary is, "What would have happened to us and to all of mankind if Jesus Christ in His mercy had not come to redeem us?" I don't even want to try and think about this scenario.

[Michael Stickles]

Thanks -- that gave the context I needed to see what the difference was. Irenaeus credited Adam with repentance by his actions, while Innocent did not. The idea of "conveying the truth" didn't automatically imply repentance to me; I've seen a fairly accurate conveying of the truth about a situation co-exist with lack of repentance on a few occasions (mostly involving my kids).


The idea that it is not the sin itself (i.e. the eating of the fruit, or even the violation of a code of conduct) that is the tragedy of Eden, but the attitude surrounding that transgression and its enactment, is actually fairly standard in much of the patristic corpus.

I kind of suspected that, but I haven't read any of the Fathers' commentary on these events before, so the emphasis I've seen has been the standard PC emphasis on the sin itself. It's been interesting in my time on this forum to begin to see how that one difference -- the views of sin in the OC and PC -- leads, in whole or in part, to so many doctrinal differences.

[Mourad Mankarios]

I sense a toned down version of the satifaction theory of redemption in St Innocent's work here.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I sense a toned down version of the satifaction theory of redemption in St Innocent's work here.

That's interesting. Can you expand?

INXC, Matthew

[John]

From the introduction we see that St. Innocent is using the word happiness to be an individual self-actuated and psychological experience. In the second paragraph of this section he writes, "...He created Adam blessed also, and this blessedness or beatitude was meant to increase in him day by day." I read this to mean that the state of blessedness is a gift of God, sometimes bestowed upon some men. To restate: happiness is a psychological state that I try create for myself while blessedness is a ontological state or state of being given by God.

Hello Cyril. I thought your comments were interesting. I wonder though about this split. Doesn't St. Innocent talk in the introduction about true happiness coming from God? There it doesn't sound like something selfish, but something God gives. He says:

[F]ull happiness ... comes from God and cannot be attained without Him.

That sounds a little different from what you're suggesting.

I think?

Yours,
John

[Mourad Mankarios]

That's interesting. Can you expand?

INXC, Matthew

I found the following passage interesting:

No man, even the most talented and powerful, nor all of mankind in unison, could ever restore what Adam lost when he sinned in Eden. What would have happened to us and to all of mankind if Jesus Christ in His mercy had not come to redeem us?

It seems that St Innocent is suggesting some form of necessity in the atonement and sacrifical suffering of our Lord here. However, a close reading of St Athanasius' 'On the Incarnation' reflects something somewhat to the contrary. Where God is seen as being able to provide salvation in whichever way He pleases, and not bound by some form of necessity, however the 'Way of the Cross' was considered to be the most superior.

The following statement also leans towards the satisfaction-substitutionary model of atonement:

Those torments we, as transgressors of the will of God, would have had to suffer, He bore for us.

Perhaps the greatest piece of evidence of such elements within St Innocent's work will come in the next section where he suggests the following below, which you will find typical of the justice-mercy dichotomy often referred to in the satisfaction theory and how the justice of the Father is appeased through His mercy:

In these most trying sufferings, while justice and loyalty to His Father demanded from Christ that He destroy mankind as ungrateful and criminal, the feelings of pity and sorrow ultimately stirred Him to accept all sufferings and death itself to save us sinners from the power of the devil and from eternal damnation.

[John]

In the first paragraph, St Innocent uses the phrase, 'the benefits given us by our Lord Jesus Christ'; what does he mean by this term, 'benefits'?

This sounds like a strange word to me. But St. Innocent talks about it as the gifts (of grace?) that Jesus gives. At the end of the section he lists off being washed of all of our sins, becoming children of God, not having to suffer the torments we should have to, having the gates of Paradise opened for us. These seem to be the kind of benefits he's talking about.


What does it mean to say, with respect of Adam, 'his memory, intellect, and all other faculties were in harmony and were constantly being perfected'?

This section really struck me. What does he mean by "constantly being perfected?"

Is it connected to another section Matthew mentioned:


What are the implications of St Innocent's discussion of the 'darkening of Adam's soul'?

?

Yours,
John

[Father David Moser]

With some of these points that Matthew has brought out, I think it would be helpful to recall that this document by St Innocent is a missionary/catechetical text written to the Alaskan natives. In it, I think, some of his wording is selected to link Orthodoxy to their native religion so that it would be easier to see it as a the fulfillment of what they have always believed and thus much easier to accept.

I mention this without having yet processed it to the point of being able to pull out some concrete examples, however, it was a thought prompted by the question of "benefits" and John's reaction that "it sounds ... strange" What enlightenment does the context of St Innocent's writing as a missionary catechism addressed to an unenlightened people bring?

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

That's a very interesting comment, Father. I have no first-hand knowledge about the linguistic / religious context of Alaskan natives at the time of St Innocent's writing, so I cannot comment there. But many cultures (including modern Europe and North America) thrive on the concept of benefit-for-action; i.e. acts motivated by the concept 'what will I get for this?' So there is clearly a missionary potential in framing discussions around such a mentality of approach. Perhaps this is why St Innocent seems to alternate, in his text, between speaking in almost commercial terms ('here's what the benefits are...'), and terms that challenge those divisions (e.g. what we want is happiness; what we get is blessedness).

Very interesting food for thought. I look forward to others' comments.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

I found the following passage interesting:

No man, even the most talented and powerful, nor all of mankind in unison, could ever restore what Adam lost when he sinned in Eden. What would have happened to us and to all of mankind if Jesus Christ in His mercy had not come to redeem us?

It seems that St Innocent is suggesting some form of necessity in the atonement and sacrifical suffering of our Lord here. However, a close reading of St Athanasius' 'On the Incarnation' reflects something somewhat to the contrary. Where God is seen as being able to provide salvation in whichever way He pleases, and not bound by some form of necessity, however the 'Way of the Cross' was considered to be the most superior.

I am not sure that I read St Innocent's comment in quite this way. The burden of necessity is not on God, but on man: it is humanity that could not have been healed. God has not found himself in a situation where he is forced to act in one way rather than another; rather, man has burdened the cosmos and himself with sin, and it is the creator's free act of love that motivates the incarnation. This is a point he makes a little later in the present section of the text:
'But we should all thank our Heavenly Father for taking pity on us. He loves us far more than we are capable of loving ourselves. And because of His infinite love, He has sent His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to rid us from our sins and from the snare of the devil and to lead us into the eternal Kingdom of Heaven' (emphasis mine).
Innocent does not here dwell on possibilities of other ways of salvation: he simply suggests that God's love motivated this response to the dire conditions that followed that first sin. And the mission of Christ in this incarnate offering is chiefly the restoration of that broken relationship, toward which he becomes the enabler and the guide. So St Innocent writes:
'The path to salvation has been shown and arranged; it has been made as smooth and level as possible. Besides this, Jesus Himself constantly helps us along the way, so to speak, leading us by the hand.'
You also wrote:


The following statement also leans towards the satisfaction-substitutionary model of atonement:

Those torments we, as transgressors of the will of God, would have had to suffer, He bore for us.It will be interesting to read on (as in the next section, which you mention), as to the precise nature of what he means by this suffering on Christ's part of the 'torments we would have had to suffer'. A question I might like to keep in the back of the mind is whether taking on the sufferings rightly due to an other is necessarily 'substitutionary' in the sense that the term is so often used in theological discussions. What is the focus and purpose of such a taking on? There is substitution of legal satisfaction as one option; but there can also be a taking on of another's due as an act of paradigmatic love, or as a movement of complete identity with the other, etc.

INXC, Matthew

[Mourad Mankarios]

The burden of necessity is not on God, but on man: it is humanity that could not have been healed. God has not found himself in a situation where he is forced to act in one way rather than another; rather, man has burdened the cosmos and himself with sin, and it is the creator's free act of love that motivates the incarnation.


I suppose here I don't refer to necessity in the sense so much as to indicate a mode of redemption as opposed to another but rather as the satisfaction model of atonement would hold that there is by necessity the glory of God which must be returned, having been robbed by man's sin. Hence turning redemption on its head from a man centered act to a God centered act, ie everything that Christ accomplishes is more so for God Himself rather than for man.

I cannot absolutely accuse St Innocent of the above but if we were to fit him to a particular model although he tends to have a much broader and richer understanding of salvation he does at times through the quotes given tend to seem somewhat skewed to the above.



A question I might like to keep in the back of the mind is whether taking on the sufferings rightly due to an other is necessarily 'substitutionary' in the sense that the term is so often used in theological discussions. What is the focus and purpose of such a taking on? There is substitution of legal satisfaction as one option; but there can also be a taking on of another's due as an act of paradigmatic love, or as a movement of complete identity with the other, etc.


I don't think it's a substitutionary model of atonement per se which we might struggle to understand since there are certainly elements of this throughout both scripture and patristics but more so a model which leans to more of a penal substitutionary model can raise some eyebrows.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Thank you for the thoughtful response, Mourad. In it, you wrote:


I suppose here I don't refer to necessity in the sense so much as to indicate a mode of redemption as opposed to another but rather as the satisfaction model of atonement would hold that there is by necessity the glory of God which must be returned, having been robbed by man's sin. Hence turning redemption on its head from a man centered act to a God centered act, ie everything that Christ accomplishes is more so for God Himself rather than for man.

I cannot absolutely accuse St Innocent of the above but if we were to fit him to a particular model although he tends to have a much broader and richer understanding of salvation he does at times through the quotes given tend to seem somewhat skewed to the above.

I would be very curious to know precisely where you see this in his writing, as I'm having trouble finding any evidence of it myself (I'm not denying it, mind you; just saying I've yet to see it myself) - though clearly it seems to stand out to you. Is there a passage in the text that you feel demonstrates St Innocent conveying that salvation is 'a God centered act, ie everything that Christ accomplishes is more so for God Himself rather than for man'?

INXC, Matthew

[Mourad Mankarios]

I would be very curious to know precisely where you see this in his writing, as I'm having trouble finding any evidence of it myself (I'm not denying it, mind you; just saying I've yet to see it myself) - though clearly it seems to stand out to you. Is there a passage in the text that you feel demonstrates St Innocent conveying that salvation is 'a God centered act, ie everything that Christ accomplishes is more so for God Himself rather than for man'?



I think its perhaps my particularly personal aversion to satisfaction and penal subtitutionary models of atonement that make me hypersensitive to any innuendo regarding the such.

Personally, Matthew I came to see the beauty, richness, depth and broadness of the Orthodox understanding of salvation which provided me with a deeper appreciation of Orthodoxy and as a corollary I developed quite an aversion to western models of salvation manifested in such forms as the satisfaction and penal substitutionary models. Such scholastic dogmatism which Orthodoxy was for a long time captivated by and still is in many circles a captive of.

I find it extremely interesting how so subtly, as in the instance of such scholastics discussed here, language can evolve and its subtle influence can be all pervading in literature, dogma, patristics, pastoring, liturgics, etc. This is truly amazing. How powerful language can be and a seemingly simple modification can evolve to have such immense implications.

As mentioned earlier I don't believe St Innocent makes statements which explicitly assert such models but there certainly appears to be innuendo of the such expressed in the passages quoted earlier. I suppose such innuendo appears when a kind of dichotomy is established between the Father and the Son, when the Son appears to satisfy the justice of the Father, when the Son is only able to provide salvation due to His infinite ability, hence alluding to infinite satisfaction for the infraction of the glory of an infinite God, when the Father is portrayed as an angry God who can only be appeased through the sacrifice of the Son, when Christ's sacrifice is reduced to merely penal substitution.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

While I have been away for some time, this reading group project seems to have slackened a bit. However, I was finding the discussion especially profitable, and wonder if others are interesting in re-kindling the group reading and discussion of this text with the next section?

INXC, Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, after reading section two, "How Jesus Christ Lived and Suffered for Us," I can't think of much in the way of comments to make. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that my scorecard after reading showed:


Conviction - 17
Pride - 0
In Christ,
Mike

[Moses Anthony]

Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, after reading section two, "How Jesus Christ Lived and Suffered for Us," I can't think of much in the way of comments to make. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that my scorecard after reading showed:

Conviction - 17
Pride - 0
In Christ,
Mike

How God works things out for His glory is truly amazing! Several weeks ago (after Confession) my priest had instructed me that I needed to do 'spiritual reading' . Among the three books I chose for this was Bishop Innocent's Indication of the Way into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then just today I was thinking that it's been 'way to long' since I've visited or made a post here, and so guilt and providence have kissed other.

One of the icons in my home (which I'm keeping until they're asked for), is Jesus Christ Pantocrator. Now while I've kept and prayed before this icon for some time, it was only recently that I had a thought: The things we suffer often define the person we really are. There's nothing terribly new, or mystical about the thought, but it has had it's impact none the less. Bishop Innocent wrote "...Jesus Christ loved everyone, wished everyone well, and did good to all; and, for the true happiness of men, He did not spare His life....Jesus Christ suffered, so to speak, both visibly and invisibly ; because He saw and endured not only open insults and outrages from men, but at the same time He saw the secret evil thoughts and intentions of His enemies, and He saw that the very people who apparently loved and listened to Him, either did not believe in Him or were indifferent to their salvation."(pg. 10 & 12; New Sarov Press 1993).

The thought; as I've indicated, came because I did my undergraduate work for a Bachelor of Fine Arts, and I noticed how the side of the face of the Pantocrator icon seemed to have more definition to it than the other side. In the context of this thread then, Jesus Christ lived according to who He really was. His true self then, being accentuated by that which He endured for the redemption of mankind. As Francis Schaffer wrote in lieu of this "How Then Should We Live", for we have been "...identified with Him in the likeness of His death...."

the sinful and unworthy servant

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

As some people have expressed interest in carrying on with our reading and discussion of this text, perhaps it is time to take up the group again with the second main section of the text, entitled How Jesus Christ Lived and Suffered for Us (http://monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven#sect2). For those who are new, we are reading the nearly-modern patristic text by St Innocent of Alaska, The Way into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is found in its entirety here (http://monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven). For a little more on our 'reading group' and how it works, please read this post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=47543&postcount=6) toward the beginning of the thread.

As a reminder to set the context for this section, the text began with its introduction about the striving for human happiness that can only be fulfilled in God, and the first main section addressed the notion of sin, transgression, fallen reality, and the work of Christ (much discussed previously in this thread). St Innocent drew that section to a close, following a long section on the nature of sin, with a pointer towards the incarnate life and offering of Christ:
'By His way of life Christ showed us how to live to attain salvation. And He also assists us constantly in everything good. By His most precious blood Jesus washed away our sins and made of us children of God, who were slaves of passions and the devil. Those torments we, as transgressors of the will of God, would have had to suffer, He bore for us. By His death He crushed the power of the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and delivered us from death. By His resurrection He gave us life and opened the gates of Paradise to all. Therefore, death is no longer an irreversible tragedy but a passage from this temporary world of vanity and sorrows to the world of bright and joyous life. By His ascension into heaven Christ glorified our nature, enabling us to share eternal bliss with the angels and all the heavenly creatures.'
In the present section (http://monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven#sect2), then, he turns to the incarnate life of Christ that gives these blessings and offers this salvation.

Perhaps as discussion starters on this section, the following might be of interest:
St Innocent begins by declaring, 'The basis of life is love', and then talks about how we love, and how Christ loves. What does this statement mean?
How does Christ's love relate to his being as the 'only-begotten Son of God and God himself'? In other words, how does St Innocent connect confessions of the divine nature of the Son to his loving being as incarnate Saviour?
What of Christ's self-emptying?
What are the implications of St Innocent's comment, 'Jesus Christ constantly prayed to His Heavenly Father'?
Why is the raising of Lazarus seen by St Innocent as Christ's 'greatest miracle'?
St Innocent dwells at great length on Christ's prayer and anguish in Gethsemane. What are the implications of his comments on Christ's 'inner sufferings', of the suffering there of the 'pure soul of the God-man'? How does it relate to Christ's offering on the cross?
What is St Innocent's perception of Pontius Pilate's role in the sacrifice of Christ?
What are the implications of this statement: 'He, the one who once breathed life into the first man, died the cruelest of deaths! Even soulless nature recoiled at this crime: the sun darkened and the earth quaked'?These might give us some starting-points.

[Moses Anthony]

Dear all,

As some people have expressed interest in carrying on with our reading and discussion of this text, perhaps it is time to take up the group again with the second main section of the text, entitled How Jesus Christ Lived and Suffered for Us (http://monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven#sect2).

Perhaps as discussion starters on this section, the following might be of interest:[LIST]
St Innocent begins by declaring, 'The basis of life is love', and then talks about how we love, and how Christ loves. What does this statement mean?

As I'd mentioned in another post, the copy I possess of the missionary leaflet by St. Innocent is the older version by Lancelot Press. I copied the Monachos version to catch up, so to speak.

I had wanted to cover quite a bit, beginning with the fact that at creation God breathed into man the breath of life. Then onto what St. John the Beloved Disciple had to say about God in his first epistle; i.e., "...He who does not love, does not know God, for God is love..." and earlier that "...whoever does not love abides in death..." And then our identification with Christ through baptism into death, and resurrection by the power of God to walk in newness of life.

My entire point hinges on what St. Paul wrote, that our "...life is hid with Christ in God, and that through our being adopted, born anew into the family of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, His life becomes mine. From that point onwards it's a struggle to get what's true before the eyes of God, to be true in my flesh! I.E., the ascetic struggle towards theosis. (a lesson of Job)

I wanted to point out, that this fact presents somewhat of a problem for us today due to our perception of love as some type of warm, fuzzy emotion. To put the words of St. Innocent another way, think of the phrase as God saying, "I am your heart", for we know that God is the basis of life.

Please understand: While I've read various things from various of them, I didn't specifically read any Church Fathers who expressed this viewpoint, this way.

the sinful and unworthy servant
moses

[M.C. Steenberg]

St Innocent begins by declaring, 'The basis of life is love', and then talks about how we love, and how Christ loves. What does this statement mean?


I wanted to point out, that this fact presents somewhat of a problem for us today due to our perception of love as some type of warm, fuzzy emotion. To put the words of St. Innocent another way, think of the phrase as God saying, "I am your heart", for we know that God is the basis of life.

I have been intrigued by what Moses wrote. I find it an interesting connection. St Innocent seems to take as his starting point the missiological function of an active love. 'The basis of life is love' is followed by a quotation from Mark 12: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself'. In other words, the 'basis of life' is to fulfill these greatest of commandments: actively to love God, to love neighbour.

But then he goes on, in what follows, to speak of the lack of love in human existence and relationships. The only true lover is Christ, whose 'infinite love was evidenced in His every word and deed'. This leads St Innocent into his long discourse on the 'how' of Christ's active love: the story of his self-offering and passion. His loving is tied to his offering. Or to put it in St Innocent's own words: 'the boundless love of Jesus Christ' is tied to 'the extent of His sacrifice'.


There seems to be something here of the call to emulation and co-operation, which sits perfectly with the focus of this text as a missionary and catechetical tract. Towards the end of the whole document, Innocent writes:
'No one, even though he believe in Jesus Christ, can regard himself to be His disciple and share His glory in Heaven if he does not act as Jesus Christ did.'
Ultimately, this 'acting as Jesus did' is, according to the present section, loving as Jesus loved - even though St Innocent is quite specific in stating that 'none of us is capable of loving God and our neighbors in such a complete and perfect manner'. His focus in what comes is that in order to love as Christ loved, one must love in and with Christ, as enabled by the Holy Spirit (more on this in the sections ahead).

The basis of life is love. The basis of love is sacrifice. Christ's is the only pure and complete sacrifice. The basis of human life, of my life, then, is Christ's sacrifice, which draws me in to his love, which is the source and essence of what - God willing - becomes my own.

Does this seem an adequate reading?

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

How does Christ's love relate to his being as the 'only-begotten Son of God and God himself'? In other words, how does St Innocent connect confessions of the divine nature of the Son to his loving being as incarnate Saviour?


The above is on of my own 'starter questions' on this section; and given the content of some recent discussions elsewhere in the Community over the past days, I think it has even more bearing. I wonder if others have thoughts?

INXC, Matthew

[Moses Anthony]

The above is on of my own 'starter questions' on this section; and given the content of some recent discussions elsewhere in the Community over the past days, I think it has even more bearing. I wonder if others have thoughts?

INXC, Matthew

I'm not subscribed to all the other threads, so I cannot comment on their content, and bearing to this discussion.

There's been no end of characters in movies, or on television who've made a statement similar to, "All I could think about, all those years, was how to get even with you for your betrayal. I didn't notice that this passion for revenge fueled by my hatred was eating me alive on the inside. And so to live, I had to let go of my desire for revenge and forgive you. I might still be despicable, but inside, I'm alive." Again, as St. Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth "...Love takes no thought of wrongs done to it..."

There are no end of scientists who will testify that although they cannot say why, people who have a loving heart, live better, longer. This is something which has bugged me for some time, whenever my wife and I have an argument; "What do I do with the emotional hurt when I forgive." The rock band The Eagles wrote a song about all the repressed anger and fault finding: Get Over It! Those of us in religious circles would say, "Well you've got to give it to the Lord."

Your statement Matthew, about love being sacrifice, I believe, as Brits would say, is spot on. St. Peter wrote the Church in Asia, that when we do what is right and suffer for, and patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. "...For Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, for you to follow in His steps." (Which itself leads into another of the discussion starters, the implications of Christ's self-emptying, i.e., His Incarnation).

For some strange, or otherwise reason, I've found that the reading of St. Innocent's work these past few weeks, my heart is quietly at peace, even in a prison setting.

the sinful and unworthy servant,
moses

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Moses and others,

Thank you for the response. The passage in the text that I particularly had in mind was this:



His infinite love was evidenced in His every word and deed. Being the only-begotten Son of God and God Himself, Jesus Christ in His pity for us came down from Heaven and was incarnate, becoming in everything the same as us, except in sin. Being the Sovereign Heavenly King, before Whom all Angels and creatures tremble, He deigned to take on the image of an ordinary person, to restore our corrupted nature. While possessing all the treasures of the world, He agreed to be born in poverty, lying in a manger in a dark cave. (Text found here (http://www.monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven#sect2))


What strikes me is the orientation of these comments (and indeed, the longer set of reflections they introduce) around the incarnational reality of the eternal Son. In a section entitled 'How Jesus Christ lived and suffered for us', St Innocent takes pains to begin with the trinitarian confession of begotten relation. 'Being the only-begotten Son of God and God himself...' This seems to me more than simply an allusion to the creed and the Gospel of St John. It is in this begotten relationship of the Son to the Father, that the 'how' of Jesus' life finds the source of its active love. The fact that he 'in his pity of us came down from heaven' is and act of that love which is 'the basis of life', because it is the coming-down of one who is eternal and God. That he 'was incarante, becoming in everything the same as us, except in sin', is an act of that love, because the one who becomes as us is the only-begotten of the Father. When 'he deigned to take on the image of an ordinary person', this was an act of life-giving love inasmuch as it is not just any who so deigns, but 'the Sovereign Heavenly King, before whom all angels and creatures tremble'.

There is a strong sense in this of the theological grounding for the 'love that is the basis of life'. It is not simply the acts of love, but the love that Christ is as the sacrificial offering of the only-begotten Son. Christ is love in his eternal relation to the Father; but he is redemptive love in the outpouring of this eternal relation for the sake of the world. Christ's love is his incarnate love - which is why, I think, St Gregory and others would make so much of that phrase I repeat quite often: 'the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world'. It is not merely the lamb, but the sacrificed and sacrificial lamb that offers the love which brings to life.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

The discussion here seems to have died out. I know that for me, the problem was that the last section - How Jesus Christ Lived and Suffered for Us - was material not for discussion but for conviction, and I couldn't find much to say. However, the next section - The Path into the Kingdom of Heaven - looks more "discussable", so perhaps we could move forward to that and maybe get things going again, if folks are interested in doing so?

I've just started up reading this section, but a few things are already jumping out as calling for more thought:

St. Innocent describes a three-fold program to "nourish in ourselves the desire and resolve to follow the path of salvation" - (1) study the foundations of faith thoroughly, (2) accept the faith humbly, and (3) follow it diligently. What things strike you in this program?
In that third point, he says one should "try to nourish a diligence in yourself to follow that which is taught by the Holy Scriptures." In what ways can we do that?
What implications do you see in the analogy of the mountaintop mansion?
In what way(s) do the sacraments of the Church "reinforce our spiritual strength"?
What of the differentiation between an "outer cross" and an "inner cross"?
What of the considerations he gives regarding why the path to the Kingdom is not light and pleasant?There are more, but these are what jump out at me the strongest after a first reading.

In Christ,
Mike

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is great material, and very excellent points! It suddenly strikes me that St. Innocent would be a wonderful way to introduce Protestants to Orthodoxy, he tackles many of their concerns head-on, especially in Point #2 about the importance of Holy Scripture!

The wisdom of point #1 and its three-part program seems self-evident. We are certainly going to ask many questions and even challenge much of what we learn, especially when so much runs counter to what we learned before. Part 2 is a beautiful point, demonstrating both St. Innocent's own Faith and wisdom. It expresses a confidence that what will be learned can be accepted and will not be refuted, but lets us know that we have to be humble in order to accept it. It is our pride that keeps us from understanding much of the time. Part 3 is the hardest part. Once we learn what we must do, it can be daunting and also plays a role in the last point about "light and pleasant". I confess that there have been many times when I have wished for a more light and pleasant path, but realize that it wouldn't be the RIGHT path...

In your second bullet, St. Innocent echos St. Paul who tells us that Scripture is very useful, and again would help allay Protestant fears that somehow "tradition" trumps "Scripture" and that the Orthodox don't emphasize Holy Scripture.

As to the outer and inner crosses, I think it has to do with the fact that there are outside influences like sickness, conflict, and such which are outer crosses, and asceticism and quietness are inner crosses.

Just some quick thoughts that I hope have some value to others in forming their own.

Herman

[Moses Anthony]

The discussion here seems to have died out. I know that for me, the problem was that the last section - How Jesus Christ Lived and Suffered for Us - was material not for discussion but for conviction, and I couldn't find much to say. However, the next section - The Path into the Kingdom of Heaven - looks more "discussable", so perhaps we could move forward to that and maybe get things going again, if folks are interested in doing so?

I've just started up reading this section, but a few things are already jumping out as calling for more thought:

St. Innocent describes a three-fold program to "nourish in ourselves the desire and resolve to follow the path of salvation" - (1) study the foundations of faith thoroughly, (2) accept the faith humbly, and (3) follow it diligently. What things strike you in this program?

What of the differentiation between an "outer cross" and an "inner cross"?

What of the considerations he gives regarding why the path to the Kingdom is not light and pleasant?There are more, but these are what jump out at me the strongest after a first reading.

In Christ,
Mike

I myself was beginning to wonder what had happened to the discussion group's reading of St.Innocent's missionary pamphlet.

Now as I think about what you've raised concerning St. Innocent's "program", I'm reminded of the admonition of St. Paul to Timothy to not neglect the faith, as he had received it from his grandmother Lois. This is the same type of message that St. Peter gave to the Asian Church to study their faith; so as to be able, to give an answer to those who ask for a reason for the faith within them.

It is difficult to make a case for the Christian life, by saying one is not an academic; and this especially so when God has said, "My people perish for lack of knowledge..." or that in the Shama, we're commanded to love the Lord our God,, not only with our hearts, souls, and strength; but, also with all our mind. I cannot forget the Proverb, which basically tells that if we search diligently for wisdom, we would "...find the knowledge of God."

I do not think that this means I have to be fluent in either Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew (this work has already been done by reputable scholars). It does mean however, that I MUST discipline myself to read first the Holy Scriptures, and then the work of the Church Fathers. Micah asked, "...With what shall I come before the Lord. Shall I offer the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul. But He has shown thee O man what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." That had been a favorite Scripture of mine for years, before it dawned on me: It's impossible to walk with God without being humble, for God resists the proud.Therein is the inner cross!

In reading of the men of note in Protestantism, I read of Rees Howells, Intercessor. He spoke of how God dealt with him about his habit of wearing a hat, and of the family habit custom of eating meals together (the latter was first). These were not things of which, not any of us would consider to be sinful, and yet they were powerful areas of struggle for Rees Howells. I would suppose that "inner crosses" can be boiled down to three words; conscience, convictions and commitments. And yet, whether they can or not, of the two types, they for some reason to me, seem to be the more precious.

I was going to post some other thoughts concerning the last point, but this post is already to long. Forgive me!

the sinful and unworthy servant,
moses

[Theopesta]

Therein is the inner cross!

With all respect to every one in all churches. I do not know my opinion is right or not; according to my poor and little experience, I think every one is escaping from this inner cross even in the most holy places. The most loud opinions see such feelings "the inner cross feelings" are unhealthy feelings. the strong voices always consider the easy life is the sign of peacful, innocent heart and purpose
Do please forgive me if I have deserted from the main topic.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mike and others,

Thank you for stirring this discussion back to life; I'm delighted to see it going again. The joy of on-line discussions is that they seem to ebb and flow with a life of their own.

One point you raised, Mike, caught my interest this morning. You asked:



St. Innocent describes a three-fold program to "nourish in ourselves the desire and resolve to follow the path of salvation" - (1) study the foundations of faith thoroughly, (2) accept the faith humbly, and (3) follow it diligently. What things strike you in this program?


What strikes me about his address in this section, and with an eye toward this three-fold programme in particular, is that it is not per se a catechetical programme he is describing here, but one of sustenance in the Christian life and faith for those who are already its members. He begins the section, 'Christian! Your salvation or perdition is entirely in your own hands.' While much of this tract is aimed at those who are not yet members of the Church (it is, after all, a missionary tract, and in large part aimed at potential converts), this portion is - in some sense - mission to the Body itself. Having taken up the life of Christ, he describes the means by which to live fully in that relationship, since 'it is extremely important to nourish in ourselves the desire and resolve to follow the path of salvation'.

This seems important, because the programme he is describing is not, as such, a 'pathway in' to the Church. Were it to be read that way, it seems a daunting task: to become a Christian one must read all the scriptures, diligently study them together with the writings of the fathers, etc. Yet St Innocent is speaking to those living the Christian life, reminding them that this life must consume not just their actions (he has spent the previous sections talking of the necessity to love, to sacrifice, to do good, to give alms, etc.), but also their thoughts and minds. 'First of all, a Christian must thoroughly study the foundations of the Christian faith.' This seems especially relevant advice to be given to Christians who are united to the Church as converts (which is the population among which St Innocent lived, for whom he wrote): Christianity does not demand intellectual prowess to be received or taken up; but a life lived in Christ ought to be one which aims, as part of that living, to transform the intellect, mind and heart as much as the body and actions.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Theopesta]

his memory, intellect, and all other faculties were in harmony and were constantly being perfected
In brief, Adam was in Paradise, and Paradise was within him.
When God appeared to Adam right after he had sinned, Adam, instead of repenting and promising obedience henceforth, began to justify himself and to blame his wife...so it was that sin became a part of human nature, deeply injuring it because of the lack of repentance of Adam and Eve.
Having lost Paradise within himself, Adam became unworthy of the external Paradise and was therefore banished from it. In One Christ

[M.C. Steenberg]

Having lost Paradise within himself, Adam became unworthy of the external Paradise and was therefore banished from it.


Thank you for reminding of this quotation, Theopesta. It is one of my very favourites.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Theopesta]

Being the supreme Lawgiver.....Once mature, He treated the Jewish elders and leaders with respect, as well as the Roman governors, and paid the required taxes. He willingly lived in poverty and often, while travelling to preach, had no place to rest His head. Christ, to Whom all nature submits, Himself served people and even washed the feet of His disciples, who were uneducated fishermen..
In One Christ

[Theopesta]

Sometimes the path leading to Paradise may become narrow, steep and overgrown with bushes, whereas other paths may seem wider and easier to travel. It is very important not to stray from the correct path. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles repeatedly warned that there is but one path that leads to the Kingdom of Heaven, the one given in the Gospel. All others, especially the wide and comfortable ones, lead to perdition..
monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska

In One Christ

[Theopesta]

1- Deny himself:


This means that you must disown all bad habits, free your heart from sinful bonds...and, in general, do nothing because of stubbornness or ego but do all for the love of God and with the desire to contribute to the glory of His Holy Name..

2- Take up his cross:


Crosses may be external as well as internal. To take up your cross means to tolerate everything without complaining, regardless of how unpleasant things might become...Do not consider yourself punished unjustly, but accept everything as your cross..

3- Follow Me


In following Jesus Christ, it is not enough to carry only an outward cross. Indeed, external crosses are borne not only by Christians but by everyone; there exists no person free from one or more sorrows. He who wishes to become a true disciple of Christ must also carry his own inner cross....


In a state of repentance, you need only direct your thoughts inward to study your soul, and instantly a multitude of crosses will appear....For instance, reflect on how you were created and what is the purpose of your life..

In One Christ.

[Theopesta]

Here are some thought about the Cross; I do not know if they are in harmony with the orthodox mind or not:


The cross of Jesus is not a symbol to worship as many do today. It is not a prayer or worship material. In fact, it is more than a symbol. It possesses great spiritual power....


We can do nothing except we abide in Christ. A Christ less cross is powerless. All the significances of the cross as will be stated here hing on the true existence of Christ for their effectiveness...


It was Christ Jesus our Lord that gave the cross its meaning and power.


Once again the cross without Christ is powerless and empty.


He that gave power and meaning to ordinary wood or tree is much more worthy and able to give meaning to our dilapidated and broken lives.


All you need in life is found in Jesus of the cross.

http://www.helium.com/tm/462125/cross-jesus-symbol-worship

I have quoted such thoughts because sometimes we imagine we are in the correct heavenly way, because we have a cross or crosses in our life; but, actually, we have done these crosses and embraced them without Christ; we may not possess HIM but have a cross(es).

So, I think the inner cross is very indicator of who we are? where are we going to?

In One Christ

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Following on another point raised by Mike from the present section of the text (http://www.monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven):



What of the differentiation between an "outer cross" and an "inner cross"?

The main portions of the passage that deal with this distinction are these three connected paragraphs that come about midway through the section:
"In following Jesus Christ, it is not enough to carry only an outward cross. Indeed, external crosses are borne not only by Christians but by everyone; there exists no person free from one or more sorrows. He who wishes to become a true disciple of Christ must also carry his own inner cross.


"An inner cross comes more readily than an outer one. In a state of repentance, you need only direct your thoughts inward to study your soul, and instantly a multitude of crosses will appear. For instance, reflect on how you were created and what is the purpose of your life. Are you living according to Christ’s teaching, are you accomplishing something good, are you growing spiritually? Meditate about this in some depth, and soon you will come to realize that you are failing in many important areas. God created you so that with all your works, life, and being you should contribute to the spreading of good and the strengthening of His Kingdom. You, however, have not only failed in this, but, by your sins, you have rejected and even insulted Christ. Reflect on what awaits you beyond the grave and on what side you will find yourself at the Last Judgment: with the righteous or with the evildoers? And if you seriously reflect on all this, you will naturally become distressed and will regret your many words and deeds — and these painful feelings and the desire for repentance will become your inner cross. If you continue attentively to study yourself, you will find many other inner crosses. For instance, hell, which you have so carelessly avoided considering until now, will suddenly appear to you as a very real threat. Paradise, which the Lord has prepared for you and which has barely crossed your mind, will vividly present itself to you as it really is: a place of eternal and pure joy from which you have deprived yourself by your careless way of life.


"If, in spite of the inner turmoil brought about by such reflections, you firmly resolve to repent and amend your ways and, if, instead of consoling yourself with earthly enjoyments, you diligently pray to the Lord to save you and you decide to surrender yourself totally to His will, then the Lord will reveal to you more clearly the state of your soul so that you may be totally healed. Our problem is that the actual condition of our spiritual sickness is hidden from us under a thick mantle of self-love and passions. Only occasionally, thanks to our conscience, do we get a glimpse of our major and most obvious spiritual wounds."
Some interesting observations leap out at me. First is the St Innocent's usage of the cross here not specifically as an identification with the Lord's own cross (which he and others do elsewhere), but specifically as an instrument of pain. The world with thrust external crosses at the person - that is, sources of pain that come from persecution, humiliation, rejection, and the like. But authentic inward examination, prayerful contemplation of the heart, reveals interior crosses in abundance; and these are 'crosses' inasmuch as they are sources of pain: realisation of failing, of sin, of immorality, etc. It seems quite deliberately the pain of such awareness, together with what St Innocent calls its resulting 'inner turmoil', that is of interest. And this is because 'these painful feelings' will yield 'the desire for repentance will become your inner cross.' So, just as the Cross of Christ was the instrument of pain, and yet became the transformation of that pain into joy ('Through the Cross, joy has come into all the world' - troparion of the Cross), so the crosses of the Christian life - whether external or internal - come the means of repentance and change.

It is because these crosses bring Christ's life more fully into ours, that St Innocent indicates they must be embraced - indeed, actively sought. As he sums up towards the end of the section:

"And so, brethren, if you wish to attain the Kingdom of Heaven, you cannot bypass the path taken by Jesus Christ. Indeed, all the prophets, the Apostles, the martyrs, the saints and countless other righteous ones walked along this path. There is no other."
INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Above, Theopesta wrote:

sometimes we imagine we are in the correct heavenly way, because we have a cross or crosses in our life; but, actually, we have done these crosses and embraced them without Christ; we may not possess HIM but have a cross(es).

So, I think the inner cross is very indicator of who we are? where are we going to?


This is a wonderful reminder, and good insight. There are crosses that can be clutched, that are so without any devotion or connection to Christ. The world may force certain challenges and even pains upon people; and these can be taken up as a matter of course. But the 'inner cross', the cross that is the fruit of discernment and repentance, is a cross borne intentionally in the framework of Christian offering and sacrifice.

Thank you for this marvellous thought.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Theopesta]

He was the first one who travelled it


if you truly wish to follow Jesus Christ, He will show you the way into the Kingdom of Heaven and will help you along each step


we must learn where the path Christ showed us leads and how to follow it..

In One Christ

[Theopesta]

Prudence would suggest that, before undertaking such a trip, you should carefully study the map of the mountain, obtaining all the necessary supplies for the climb and being prepared to spend the night on the mountain, if necessary. It would be good to ask a ranger about landmarks on the mountain and how best to avoid losing your way or straying from the correct trail. Certainly, being a person with common sense, you would make all necessary preparations before setting off on this new trail.

Have a great trip,
In One Christ

[Theopesta]

The provisions are the Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Church, which reinforce our spiritual strength.


Sometimes the path leading to Paradise may become narrow, steep and overgrown with bushes, whereas other paths may seem wider and easier to travel. It is very important not to stray from the correct path. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles repeatedly warned that there is but one path that leads to the Kingdom of Heaven, the one given in the Gospel. All others, especially the wide and comfortable ones, lead to perdition.

In One Christ

[Michael Stickles]

Something else jumped out at me while reading back over this section:


If, in spite of the inner turmoil brought about by such reflections, you firmly resolve to repent and amend your ways and, if, instead of consoling yourself with earthly enjoyments, you diligently pray to the Lord to save you and you decide to surrender yourself totally to His will, then the Lord will reveal to you more clearly the state of your soul so that you may be totally healed.

How often have I repented, prayed for the Lord's salvation and strove to surrender to him fully? Times uncountable. Yet, when I was not quickly healed of that sinfulness but instead shown how much deeper and darker that sin stained my soul than ever I thought possible, I concluded there was "something wrong with me". Why wasn't I quickly healed? Why did my sinfulness seem worse to me than it did before I repented?

It never occurred to me before that this was how it should be - that the darkness needs to be illuminated before it can be healed.

When I realize my car is not running properly, I take it to the mechanic. He doesn't just fix it immediately and hand it back. First, he comes back to me with a complete inventory of what is wrong and what it will cost to fix it, and each "fix" has to be agreed to by me before he will implement it. Isn't that similar to what St. Innocent says here that the Lord does with us? But too often I want Him to not bother me with the details. It's no wonder those same things pop up over and over and over - I've never listened to the Mechanic and really agreed to the work to be done.

In Christ,
Mike

[Ken McRae]

We should probably bear in mind that St Innocent spent most of his adult life in one of the most beautiful parts of the world: Alaska. I do not know of any stories of his relationship to creation as such;

There is an icon of St. Innocent sitting on the top of a mountain in Alaska conversing with an eagle he had nursed back to health. One of the St. Herman of Alaska publications featured a fairly good coloured photo of it, back in the late 90's, so I cut it out, then had it laminated and framed; due to being unable at the time to find a ready made copy of this icon anywhere else.

At any rate, as the story goes, when the eagle was ready to be released back into the wild, St. Innocent took it up the mountain to try and set it free, but it refused to leave his side. The eagle stayed with him another few months before finally leaving. Many months after its return to the wild, the eagle returned to St. Innocent, landed before him and bowed down at the saint's feet three times, and then flew off.

This particular story clearly evinces, to me at least, that St. Innocent attained to a kind of harmony or oneness with nature which is characteristic of the saints' attainment of Paradise here on Earth.

[Ken McRae]

Anyway- I think that happiness in St Innocent's time & place means a kind of contentedness with what life provides.

Yes, this strikes me as an accurate observation, as can be seen from his discussion of the soul's experience of temporary or passing "satisfaction" and "boredom" with things of this world, or what are sometimes referred to as the "creature-comforts." That the soul even searches for "happiness" or a sense of "fulfillment" in such things is an indicator that she has not learned to be "content," in all cases and conditions, with the will of God, according to the wisdom of St. Paul: "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need." (Phil 4:11-12) However, it also quite clear to me that this "happiness" to which he refers points us to even something more sublime and mysterious by nature.

According to St. Innocent, "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to this earth in order to return to us our lost capacity to spend eternity in the blissful presence of God." Thus may we observe from this statement that the "happiness" of which he speaks is, in the highest and most proper sense of the term, really "the blissful presence of God;" which he further describes in the very next sentence as the attainment of "communion with God." The nature and subject of this "communion" is very wide and deep, and it is not for me to try and express the mystery of it in but a few meagre sentences. Nevertheless, we may discern from the saint's words that this holy communion is the source of the soul's unspeakable joy (1 Peter 1:8) in the Holy Ghost; and that this is that spiritual "bliss" of which St. Innocent speaks. This is supported in the following passage, which you will note has already been quoted twice in this thread:


"If, in spite of the inner turmoil brought about by such reflections, you firmly resolve to repent and amend your ways and, if, instead of consoling yourself with earthly enjoyments, you diligently pray to the Lord to save you and you decide to surrender yourself totally to His will, then the Lord will reveal to you more clearly the state of your soul so that you may be totally healed."

Now, what may we gather from the above words, but that the soul in question is afflicted with a deep, if not overwhelming sense of "inner turmoil;" over the sight and sense of its own lost and hopeless condition before the Lord. In this comfortless state and spiritual condition, the soul yearns for some consolation; but what does St. Innocent say about that? When under such affliction of soul, do not try to console or cheer yourself with "earthly enjoyments;" but wait upon the Lord and He will give us the Comforter, in due time, if we can but wait patiently for it, and seek it with importunity.

And but of course this spiritual consolation, of which St. Innocent here speaks, is the "bliss" or unspeakable joy of the soul's communion with God, in the grace of the Holy Spirit. For those who wish to look deeper into this aspect of the mystery of godliness, I most highly recommend the books of St. John of Kronstadt, St. Silouan of Athos, and last but not least, of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. In my humble, "unorthodox" opinion, that precious little book entitled Wisdom from Mount Athos should be in the possession of every sincere Orthodox Christian, without exception. Read and devour that work, until you can virtually quote large parts of it from memory!




... it has always intrigued me how his writing reflects a stubbornness against finding satisfaction in even the most glorious element of creation. It is 'only he, who is the ultimate Good and the source of all good, who can quench our thirst for happiness' - and only when man is first and foremost in communion with this God that the true worth of the creation becomes visible and transformative at its fullest value.

Yes, absolutely, I must whole-heartedly agree with this; as we may discern this from several passages in his writing, but most especially in the one quoted above, about turning away from "earthly enjoyments" that we may seek and aquire the consolation which is heavenly and enduring in nature; that is, the "bliss" and unspeakable joy of communion with God. It is the experimental taste of this divine joy that supports us amidst all external trials of faith and patience, and teaches us the art of divine contentment in all cases and conditions.

Those who console their souls with earthly enjoyments, while under the deep sense of spiritual afflictions, will not come to the knowledge of that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory; according to that heavenly wisdom which St. Innocent has expressed in the above words.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Having today re-read Mike's post on repentance in our text by St Innocent (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53873&postcount=76), I thought it might be an occasion to re-kindle our reading of this document, which certainly has many overtones with the present Lenten season. I highly recommend 'returning to the text' through Mike's post (link above), which focused on a comment in the section of the text we'd been considering before (the long section entitled 'The Path Into the Kingdom of Heaven'). That passage was:


If, in spite of the inner turmoil brought about by such reflections, you firmly resolve to repent and amend your ways and, if, instead of consoling yourself with earthly enjoyments, you diligently pray to the Lord to save you and you decide to surrender yourself totally to His will, then the Lord will reveal to you more clearly the state of your soul so that you may be totally healed.I quote this passage again, to show how much St Innocent's words relate to the themes of Great Lent, which has now fully begun.

There is one main section of the text left, entitled 'How Jesus Christ ' Helps Us' (found approximately 3/4 of the day down the page here (http://www.monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven)), and this, too, seems especially apt both as a way of continuing our reading, as well as forming some initial group reading for the Great Fast.

This last major section of The Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven deals with the manner in which God helps the Christian person in the life of sacrifice, renewal and transfiguration he has described in the previous sections. It begins with comments on self-reliance versus reliance on Christ, and then moves on to a goodly-length section on the gifts given by the Holy Spirit in the Christian life -- and indeed the whole section is really a dedication 'chapter' on the Spirit. The comments on the gifts of the Spirit are followed by a section on the 'requirements to receive the gifts of the Spirit'; namely, the ascetical aims of the Christian, that make him or her receptive to the Spirit's work - including sections on prayer and fasting. In all, there is an abundance of material in this section that pertains directly to the season at hand, and so it makes excellent reading and fruit for discussion in this Lenten season.

As before, I offer the following 'discussion questions' simply as offerings to begin conversation on the section - without wishing in any way to suggest these are the only items in the section to talk about:
St Innocent describes the main 'help' given by Jesus to Christians as the Holy Spirit. How does this convey his understanding about the relationship of the Son and Spirit?
What does he mean when he talks about the way the human person can 'attract the Spirit's grace'? (He addresses this concept before his listing of the gifts of the Spirit, and then again after that list, introducing the next listing, confirming that it is 'important to know what draws Him to us and what pushes Him away'.)
In particular, how does the concept of 'attracting the Spirit' relate to the fact that 'the Spirit blows where He will', which St Innocent also raises midway through the section?
In his section on the gifts of the Spirit, which is extremely rich, St Innocent's fifth 'gift' is that of joy. Joy, happiness and blessedness have been recurring themes in the tract; what are the implications of joy being connected directly to the Spirit in this passage?
What are the implications of his paragraph on the relationship of the Spirit to the sacraments and grace? (the paragraph beginning 'It is the Holy Spirit Himself Who established within the Church the means of distributing His blessings to the faithful: the Holy Mysteries and other liturgical services...')
In his third item under the listing of ascetical practices that attract the Spirit, St Innocent speaks of listening to the voice of God in one's 'conscience'. What is implicated in this discussion?
St Innocent discusses fasting as something that must take place 'externally' as well as 'internally'. What does this mean?
As the question of reading and hearing the scriptures has recently been discussed in another thread, St Innocent's comments on receiving the Spirit through hearing the scriptures seems especially pertinent. What does he mean?These are only a small number of points that stand out from a very rich passage. I'd highly encourage everyone to read this section of the text here in Great Lent, and look forward to discussion of any aspect of it.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

In the present section of the text, as his 'no. 2' of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, St Innocent speaks of the Spirit bearing love:


Descending upon a Christian, the Holy Spirit brings true love which warms his heart. This love inspires a person to do good deeds, so that for him there is nothing impossible or terrifying any more. God’s commandments, which appeared to be difficult before, now become easy. Faith and love, gifts from the Holy Spirit, are such powerful means that the person possessing them can easily and joyfully follow the path of Jesus Christ.What stands out as I read this is the connection of love to the keeping of the commandments: that the bearing of true love from the Spirit makes keeping the commandments, 'difficult before', now something that is become 'easy'. And yet it is not 'strength' that the Spirit gives for this task, but love. Love 'warms the heart', and the heart in this condition joyfully and easily follows the path of Christ, and the elements of that path become easy -- echoing Jesus' testimony, that he offers a yoke (something heavy, substantial), and yet a yoke that is 'light to bear'. The yoke remains heavy, but in the love given by the Spirit, 'there is nothing impossible or terrifying any more', and the thing 'which appeared to be difficult before, is now become easy'.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father David Moser]

What stands out as I read this is the connection of love to the keeping of the commandments: that the bearing of true love from the Spirit makes keeping the commandments, 'difficult before', now something that is become 'easy'. ...

An excellent observation. I once was making my confession to a very experienced priestmonk (now Archimandrite) and was bemoaning my difficulty with a particular sin that seemed to keep coming back and back and back. It seemed to me that I had no ability to even resist the temptation. Father's reply was that this was because I did not love God enough for it is only the love of God that can overcome the temptation to sin. He instructed me at that time to begin to ask God to grant me love for Him in my prayers.

btw - it worked.

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

An excellent observation. I once was making my confession to a very experienced priestmonk (now Archimandrite) and was bemoaning my difficulty with a particular sin that seemed to keep coming back and back and back. It seemed to me that I had no ability to even resist the temptation. Father's reply was that this was because I did not love God enough for it is only the love of God that can overcome the temptation to sin. He instructed me at that time to begin to ask God to grant me love for Him in my prayers.

This account, together with St Innocent's words, remind me of one of the sayings regarding Abba Amoun of Nitria:
"Abba Amoun of Nitria came to see Abba Antony, and said to him, 'Since my rule is stricter than yours, how is it that your name is better known amongst men than mine is?' Abba Antony replied, 'It is because I love God more than you'." (Apothegmata, Amoun 1)

[Theopesta]

Of course, there will be trying periods in our life when the path of ascension toward God will seem exceptionally difficult.
Then we should think that for every step taken there are a thousand rewards being prepared.
Sufferings along this path are momentary, but the rewards are eternal.
Therefore, do not fear the path of Christ, for a smooth and wide path ends in hell, but a thorny and narrow one leads to Heaven.


Why did God not make the path to the Kingdom of Heaven light and pleasant?
Only God knows

when Abba Antonios, pondering the ways of God, once asked: “Lord, how does it happen that many live very few years and yet others reach a ripe old age? And how is it that some live in poverty while others are rich? And how is it that the unjust continue to grow richer and the just are poor?” Then he heard a voice say to him: “Antonios, watch yourself, for those things which you ask about belong to the inscrutable ways of God’s wisdom and it is not to your benefit to learn of them.”
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8135.asp

In One Christ

[Theopesta]

Besides, lifelong crosses are not the lot of Christians alone. Everyone carries their own cross, both Christians and non-Christians, believers and pagans.
The difference is that for some, their crosses serve as a means of attaining the Kingdom of Heaven, while for the others they bring no such value.
For the Christian, the cross gradually becomes lighter and more joyful, while for the nonbeliever it becomes heavier and more burdensome. Why is this so? Because where the one carries their cross with faith and devotion to God, the other carries it with grumbling and anger.

In One Christ

[Michael Stickles]

What does he mean when he talks about the way the human person can 'attract the Spirit's grace'? (He addresses this concept before his listing of the gifts of the Spirit, and then again after that list, introducing the next listing, confirming that it is 'important to know what draws Him to us and what pushes Him away'.)

In particular, how does the concept of 'attracting the Spirit' relate to the fact that 'the Spirit blows where He will', which St Innocent also raises midway through the section?



It kind of makes me think of birds. People who love birds will set up birdhouses and feeders, plant certain flowers and shrubs, etc., to attract birds to their yard. But they realize that all they can do is set up a pleasing environment that the birds will want to come to; the birds come (or not) in their own time.

In line with the idea that 'it is important to know what draws Him to us and what pushes Him away', I have seen whole websites devoted to what things to do to attract specific kinds of birds to one's yard. If you do a few generic things (like put out a feeder and a birdhouse), you'll probably attract something, but maybe not the kind of bird you're interested in. Likewise, if you do "generically spiritual" things (meditation, etc.), you'll probably attract some kind of spirit or spiritual influence, but if you really want the Holy Spirit, you need to prepare yourself in the way that's most pleasing to Him.

In Christ,
Mike

PS - Clarence, it's certainly OK to join in; you're not late at all. Welcome aboard!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mike and others,

Many thanks for the above comments. A little further for our discussion on 'attracting the Holy Spirit' in St Innocent's text. I wrote in my 'discussion starter' questions:




What does he mean when he talks about the way the human person can 'attract the Spirit's grace'? (He addresses this concept before his listing of the gifts of the Spirit, and then again after that list, introducing the next listing, confirming that it is 'important to know what draws Him to us and what pushes Him away'.)

In particular, how does the concept of 'attracting the Spirit' relate to the fact that 'the Spirit blows where He will', which St Innocent also raises midway through the section?





To which Mike replied:


It kind of makes me think of birds. People who love birds will set up birdhouses and feeders, plant certain flowers and shrubs, etc., to attract birds to their yard. But they realize that all they can do is set up a pleasing environment that the birds will want to come to; the birds come (or not) in their own time.

In line with the idea that 'it is important to know what draws Him to us and what pushes Him away', I have seen whole websites devoted to what things to do to attract specific kinds of birds to one's yard. If you do a few generic things (like put out a feeder and a birdhouse), you'll probably attract something, but maybe not the kind of bird you're interested in. Likewise, if you do "generically spiritual" things (meditation, etc.), you'll probably attract some kind of spirit or spiritual influence, but if you really want the Holy Spirit, you need to prepare yourself in the way that's most pleasing to Him.

There's a lot to think about in your comments, Mike, for which I'm grateful. To bring them into direct reflection on St Innocent's words, here is the comment by which he introduces the theme in our section of the text (http://www.monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven):
"The Holy Spirit, being God, equal to the Father and the Son, is the source of life and strength. He gives to believers wisdom, inner peace and inspiration, not according to their merits but for Jesus Christ’s sake. How the Holy Spirit helps us, what are His gifts, and how one should attract His Grace will now be explained in accordance with the Holy Scriptures."
It is interesting that St Innocent distinguishes between the Spirit himself, and the grace of the Spirit manifest in his gifts. The Holy Spirit is, in the words of the prayer of Pentecost, 'everywhere present, filling all things', and in some sense can never be 'closer' or 'further'. Yet the Spirit's active presence, the grace of the intimate offering of the 'gifts of the Spirit' to the human heart, is something relational; and as the fruit of relation, is co-operative. To use your bird-feeder analogy, Mike: birds will fly where they will. The question isn't, 'will they fly and be present?', but 'will they alight here, and fill my garden with sight and song?' The Spirit 'blows where he will'; but will his life be drawn into mine in a way that transfigures and transforms?

St Innocent's text proceeds to describe seven gifts of the Holy Spirit that are involved in such transformation (faith and light; true love; correction of a worldly outlook and attitude; wisdom; peace; humility; and fervent prayer). He concludes this listing by saying:
"In summary, it is impossible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven or even come close to it without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should implore the Holy Spirit with all earnestness to come dwell in us and help us, just as He helped the Holy Apostles. In order for the Holy Spirit to be kind toward us, to descend and reside within us, it is important to know what draws Him to us and what pushes Him away."
Again, this beautiful imagery resonates well with your bird-feeder image, Mike. The Spirit is present; but does one do the things that draw him fully into one's life? Or does one persist in 'pushing him away' - which will never result in getting rid of him (he will always be present), but which will make his presence a nuisance, void of its transformative power in the heart? It is rather similar to the case with birds: if one has ever tried to dissuade birds from frolicking in one's back garden, one knows it can be almost impossible (cases depending, of course). The question becomes, do I enjoy their presence, and do things to make it yet more enjoyable so that their 'noise' becomes song that I can cherish; or do I lament it, so every bit of song becomes a screech that grates at me?

In your post, you noted the fact that, bird-feeder or not, birds will come to the water when they will. To re-quote a snippet of your remark regarding those who build bird-feeders:


But they realize that all they can do is set up a pleasing environment that the birds will want to come to; the birds come (or not) in their own time.This seems directly related to St Innocent's words:
"Jesus Christ said that the Holy Spirit blows where it wills and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes (Jn. 3:8). This means that a person cannot force the Holy Spirit to come to him or predict the time when He may decide to do so. You can only feel His touch when this happens. Indeed, the book of Acts states that when the Holy Apostles and other Christians received the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was always unexpectedly. He seldom descends immediately on those beseeching Him but does so when it suits Him, as God, to do so. No one should attempt to foretell when or what gifts, if any, he will receive or to consider himself worthy of His descent! The Grace of the Holy Spirit is a gift of His endless mercy. And gifts by definition are given when it suits the giver, and only those deemed suitable by the giver."
There is a great deal of ascetical writing in the fathers on attracting the grace of the Spirit; readying the heart for the Spirit's work; becoming accustomised to the Spirit's presence so he may more readily act; and there are dozens of prayers in the liturgical corpus that invoke the Spirit's descent, presence and activity. Yet this healthy focus, as St Innocent clearly describes it, on attracting such spiritual grace, has always to be maintained in conjunction with the fact that 'the grace of the Holy Spirit is a gift', a thing given of God's mercy. Gifts are given when the giver wishes, as he says. So the acts of 'attracting' are as much about readying ourselves as about imploring God. Since the gifts of the Spirit work within the heart in the symphonia of human freedom drawn up in God, since they are relational, being the realities of the human person in relation to the Spirit, the real 'imploring' that we do of God, the real 'attracting' that we offer to the Spirit, is the ascetical making-ready of our lives for that relationship. The human person 'attracts the Spirit' not by begging his presence, but by making ready the temple in which he will dwell. And so St Innocent's listing of the things to be done are deeply ascetical. The 'requirements to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit' are: purity of heart and chastity, humility, listening to the voice of God, prayer, self-denial, reading the holy scriptures, and receiving the sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist. These are requirements of ascetical transformation -- the Spirit is attracted because his abode is made ready, precisely following Mike's bird-feeder analogy. The Spirit is always present; but in this making-ready, one purifies and prepares the environment of the heart for a full reception of that presence, which draws its grace into the lived experience of human life.

Mike's analogy also noted the need to set up appropriate equipment in one's garden, lest one attract things other than attended. To re-quote again a small portion, where he relates this to the spiritual life:


Likewise, if you do "generically spiritual" things (meditation, etc.), you'll probably attract some kind of spirit or spiritual influence, but if you really want the Holy Spirit, you need to prepare yourself in the way that's most pleasing to Him.Again, this resonates strongly with St Innocent's words:

"It is the Holy Spirit Himself Who established within the Church the means of distributing His blessings to the faithful: the Holy Mysteries and other liturgical services. Non-Orthodox Christians are sadly mistaken when they assert that they can always, whenever it suits them, receive the Holy Spirit through well-known means (which are unfortunately also used during spiritual seances and pagan mysteries). Those who dare to orchestrate these means will not only remain empty of the divine gifts but also commit a terrible sin against the Holy Spirit."
There are other things, apart from the ascetical movements St Innocent describes, that one can do to attract the Spirit; but what one actually attracts 'may vary with service'. While Innocent doesn't mention it here, it is a resounding testimony in many patristic writings, that one can attract other spiritual powers -- including the bad -- through one's actions, which is why care and attentiveness is needed, in a state of obedience and pastoral humility. As a bishop once reminded, paraphrasing another, 'there are more spirits in the spiritual realm than just the Holy Spirit'.

The assurance of struggling after the true Spirit in a holy manner comes, for St Innocent, in the relationship of the person to the truth of God. Since the Holy Spirit is, in Christ's words, the 'Spirit of truth' (and Christ says, too, 'I am the way, the truth, the life'), this Spirit sent by the Father's Son clings to the heart drawn up in that truth. So St Innocent writes:

"Anyone who considers asking the Holy Spirit for beneficial gifts must know that these gifts are meant only for those who possess true faith. Indeed, the Lord first of all enlightened the Apostles with the true doctrine and then bestowed upon them the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Apostles did not bestow beneficial gifts upon newly baptized Christians immediately, but only after a certain period of testing and affirmation in the true faith. That is why the Lord called the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth, and His Church, the beatified community of the faithful, is called in Scripture the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)."
So, bringing Mike's bird-feeder analogy full-round, it is the engagement with truth that sets the 'tools' (i.e. the type of bird-feeder, type of seed) in due order -- that, in the realm of the life in Christ, sets the ascetical tools of attracting the Spirit into right usage. It is possible to strive after humility, self-denial, chastity, etc. apart from the truth; but then one puts all manner of unknown seeds in the bird-feeder, and can never know what one is truly seeking to attract.

What a remarkable text. My many thanks, Mike, for the food-for-thought in exploring it.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

A fascinating series of posts. I'm reminded that in the Divine Liturgy the priest prays that the Holy Spirit be sent down 'upon us' as well as the gifts. But how the Holy Spirit does descend upon us then must depend on what preparation we have done to attract and receive Him. Hence the relevance of Mike's post. I remember that when Bishop Eireniaos was officiating, he would, just before the invocation, turn to the congregation and say, 'the Holy Spirit is like a shy bird. Be very still that He may come upon you.'

[Theopesta]

While walking the path of Christ,

you should not rely only on yourself.

If Jesus Christ, our Great Benefactor, had not given us help every step of the way, no one could have reached salvation.

Even the Apostles, when left to themselves, were unable to follow Jesus and faintheartedly dispersed.

But when


on Pentecost they received help from above, they joyfully followed His path, and then neither dangers nor difficulties nor death itself could discourage them.

What is this help given by Jesus Christ to Christians?
This help is the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

God’s grace surrounds us, and with it the Lord draws us to Himself. All who wish can receive this help and become filled with it.

+ you should not rely only on yourself.

When Peter had though that he wouldn't deny his lord, he denied.
But, on Pentcost, he stood up and spoke with all strenght.. no fear.. no desires in any worldy things.. even he faced the jewish archies saying:


We ought to obey God rather than men.


We all in need to say that everyday with each one vocally and in our hearts, whatever happens: We ought to obey God rather than men.
But we would be able to say that only with God's grace not with ourselves like Peter.

The Holy Spirit, being God, equal to the Father and the Son, is the source of life and strength.

He gives to believers wisdom, inner peace and inspiration, not according to their merits but for Jesus Christ’s sake.

[Theopesta]

When descending upon a Christian,


the Holy Spirit gives him faith and light.
No one can have a true living faith without the Holy Spirit.

Even a person most learned in Scriptures is totally blind
without His enlightenment.

On the other hand, the Holy Spirit can make even the lowest simpleton wise and disclose God’s mysteries to them.

Even in our most best rightiousness, our faith in Him is from Him... our light to see ... understand ... do ... from Him.
We haven't got anything in ourselves.

"I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life"

" Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth."

Also, as Job had felt and confessed before taking his previous blessing:

{I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.} (Job42: 5,6)

In One Christ.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I realise that at present there are few people actively contributing to this thread, but I hope no one will feel it overbearing if I continue on with the text. I realise that some members don't have the time to engage with the whole text by St Innocent, so it is my hope that by commenting on small portions at a time, people might have the opportunity to join in through these smaller portions -- and of course, that it will inspire to read the whole current section (http://monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven#jesushelps)of the text, and indeed the whole tract (http://monachos.net/library/Innocent_of_Alaska%2C_The_Way_Into_the_Kingdom_of_ Heaven) (which itself is really not terribly long, and a wonderful work).

As another point from my set of 'starter questions':




In his section on the gifts of the Spirit, which is extremely rich, St Innocent's fifth 'gift' is that of joy. Joy, happiness and blessedness have been recurring themes in the tract; what are the implications of joy being connected directly to the Spirit in this passage?



The passage itself is this:
"5. The Holy Spirit gives Christians true joy and undisturbable peace. They feel this peace and joy even during external difficulties and in times of trial. People, on the other hand, who do not have the Holy Spirit, can never truly rejoice or attain inner peace. When they enjoy themselves, they find their joy is transient, frivolous and pitiful, and on occasion even sinful. After their revelry, a boredom greater than ever before fills their heart. Similarly, when a non-spiritual person feels tranquillity, this is not a true spiritual peace but a sort of dozing or apathy. Woe to the people who do not awaken in time and do not start being concerned with the salvation of their soul! They will remain spiritually dead even while alive physically."
For those who have not been reading since the beginning, this harks back to St Innocent's words at the very beginning of the document, where he noted:
"Every individual instinctively strives for happiness. This desire has been implanted in our nature by the Creator Himself, and therefore it is not sinful. But it is important to understand that in this temporary life it is impossible to find full happiness, because that comes from God and cannot be attained without Him. Only He, who is the ultimate Good and the source of all good, can quench our thirst for happiness."
His comments on 'happiness' were our focus earlier in the reading group (from approximately posts 8-29 in this thread, though also here and there in later posts). In that part of the discussion, and speaking specifically of the joy found in the saints, Anna made an important comment:


This makes me ask what is the secret of their joy in creation while others remain unsatisfied with it. From my reading I would say that we tend to operate backwards. Our deepest and most vital thirst is for God but because we do not want to deal with the percieved requirements of the relationship because of intrinsic rebellion and blindness to God's love we attempt to satisfy our thirst with either material or psuedospiritual goods.

This helpful remark now seems to find full bearing in St Innocent's own writing. Our present section of the text, on 'How Jesus Christ Helps Us' -- namely, through the Spirit -- is precisely about these 'requirements of the relationship'. Again, this is not to speak of 'requirements' in some judicial sense as 'what God demands before he'll be in relation with man', but rather the requirements of relationship. The symphonia of God-and-man is one of interaction, or more deeply, intercommunion, which involves both parties. This communion of relation is the very essence of human created nature, as St Innocent says of Adam, who 'having been created in the image and likeness of his Creator, had the most vital and close relationship with Him' (section 1). And it is this relation, Innocent notes, that is the foundation of man's 'happiness'.

Or at least, 'happiness' is the term he uses most often in the opening sections of the text. But there is a progression in the document, and by the time we reach our current section on the Spirit, St Innocent has moved fully into the terminology of joy. It is true joy that the Spirit brings, in 'undisturbable peace'. Joy comes in the fullness of creation's relation to God: joined to the Father through the Son, by the grace of the Holy Spirit. And this is a relation epitomised in man, who bears this God's image in a unique and irrepeatable way. The happiness that has always been man's lot since creation is borne up into something deeper by the Holy Spirit: the joy of full communion in the incarnate Son's relation to the Father.

In this context, St Innocent is now ready to speak fully about the variation between this true joy, and the fleeting joys fabricated by the world. Earlier he spoke of happiness versus transient pleasure; but here, joy understood as communion with the Spirit helps define precisely why pleasures are fleeting, and the full ramifications of finding 'enjoyment' through their means. The essence of this seems to be, for St Innocent, that joy is something. It is not simply a feeling or emotion, but is an actual relation with the Spirit and the Spirit's grace. This joy cannot be depleted, because the Spirit is infinite and eternal, and cannot be diminished or consumed. When a person's joy is the communion with the Spirit, that joy is everlasting.

But if a person's 'joy' is not this true joy, but something fabricated of pleasures and gratifications, joy itself ceases to be something and becomes only the sensual interaction with things. And if that is the essence of one's joy, the fleeting nature of the interactions, the fleeting nature of that sensory experience, means that 'joy' itself will always be fleeting. This isn't to say it will not or cannot be enjoyable (St Innocent clearly states that it can be); but that sensory satisfaction, which in essence is no real thing, ultimately departs and reveals the emptiness of an absence of relation. So St Innocent sums up the condition: 'After their revelry, a boredom greater than ever before fills their heart.'

This lies behind St Innocent's warning to those who 'remain spiritually dead, even while they are alive physically'. To be 'spiritually alive' is to be alive in the Spirit. It is never possible to have life utterly apart from the Spirit -- apart from God there is no existence. But it is possible to live a life that rejects the communion with the Spirit that is man's intended aim, and God's intended purpose. This is the life that seeks satisfaction from sensory pleasures and earthly gratifications, and as such is never truly satisfied. It has its pleasures and joys, but these very things reveal an emptiness, and the absence of their true types. And so the Christian, St Innocent seems to say, is drawn toward the true life of the Spirit, in which the fleeting images of real joy, real peace, real blessedness, find their true essence and stability in God himself.

Just a few thoughts. As ever, it would be very nice to hear other's discussion.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Rick Henry]

Dear All,

After just very briefly skimming this tract, I can see that I want to print this out in its entirety to read very closely, and slowly. I am grateful for the pointer to this writing. And, while I normally would not want to contribute to a discussion group without reading in full what was being discussed, I appreciate the opportunity to share thoughts and focus on this one section that has been presented.

Specifically, speaking of the gift/fruit of the Spirit of Joy (and Who's Joy IT is), I feel compelled to consider what we may call the path of Joy. And, as we bring this into view, as with other considerations of teachings that I feel contain a significant amount of practical teaching, it seems that it is not long before we hear of such things as what is presented in Anna's writing. Namely, what are "perceived requirements" and what is "psuedospiritual." Or at times we may hear of "authentic encounter" in such discussions as well. Whereby, it is helpful to read in the above post:




Our present section of the text, on 'How Jesus Christ Helps Us' -- namely, through the Spirit -- is precisely about these 'requirements of the relationship'. Again, this is not to speak of 'requirements' in some judicial sense as 'what God demands before he'll be in relation with man', but rather the requirements of relationship. The symphonia of God-and-man is one of interaction, or more deeply, intercommunion, which involves both parties.



And, I do not at all mean to be critical of what is being shared because it is spot on! However, in some ways I feel compeled to ask what we have at the end of the day as it relates to the one who would desire to apply what is being said when one is left only with key phrases? As it relates to the daily life of the Christian man or woman who would live the Life of Christ, I would honestly and humbly ask (knowing this is not a thread for pastoral care) where is the value here[?] where the rubber meets the road for the one who would seek an answer to the question of 'How Jesus Christ Helps Us.'

I really hope no one takes me the wrong way here, because these are VITAL general principals that we need to know for ourselves. But, I wonder if St. Innocent provides an answer to my question in this same section--so rich with implications--in the following:





4. The Holy Spirit gives a Christian wisdom. This is illustrated very obviously in the case of the Holy Apostles. Because of their low social position, they were the most simple and unlearned of men. However, after the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them on the day of Pentecost, they received such wisdom and power of speech that even philosophers and orators could not stand up to them. The Holy Spirit always teaches Christians what they must do, and when and how they should act. Thus guided by the Holy Spirit, they will always find the time and the means for the salvation of their soul. Amid all the turmoils of the world and in spite of being busy, they will be able to collect their inner self to be with and pray to God. A non-spiritual person, on the other hand, cannot focus or pray sincerely, even in church.



As we may consider who determines what is authentic and what is psuedospiritual, I have to think St. Innocent's writing above speaks directly to this as he writes about prayer, a collecting of the inner self, and behavior/conduct. The Holy Spirit is clearly presented in the above as one who guides and directs, as one who teaches and instructs a Christian on personal conduct, via a personal relationship with the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God.

And, now we end where we began, with relationship, communion, symphonia proving to be the path of Joy. Wherein we read of abiding in Christ in John 15, and we see Christ Himself concluding His teaching of a mystical abiding, a keeping of His commands, and of the Love of God in the following:




"These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.

--John 15:11



Possibly, as I read further I will see more from St. Innocent which speaks of "a Christian" and his or her relationship with God as he or she walks the way/path into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thank you for sharing this, this is a true blessing from St. Innocent to the eucharistic community, and one that does bring about a heavenly balance and a blessed renewal in short order.

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

In his post, Rick notes as a question:


I feel compeled to ask what we have at the end of the day as it relates to the one who would desire to apply what is being said when one is left only with key phrases? As it relates to the daily life of the Christian man or woman who would live the Life of Christ, I would honestly and humbly ask (knowing this is not a thread for pastoral care) where is the value here[?] where the rubber meets the road for the one who would seek an answer to the question of 'How Jesus Christ Helps Us.'


I'm not sure I follow your question, Rick. Are you implying that the text leaves one with 'only key phrases'? Or a discussion leaves these? What's this 'rubber meeting the road'? (I know the expression: I'm unsure in what sense you're asking it of the text -- what 'road' are you thinking of, and what 'value(s)' are you looking for?)

In terms of his text, St Innocent's point is that the gifts of the Spirit come most fully when one enters whole-heartedly into the ascetical 'making ready' of the person for his presence and grace. These are the 'requirements', inasmuch as they are the acts of preparation and preparedness by which we cease to battle against the Spirit.

Very succinctly, St Innocent lists them as: purity of heart and chastity, humility, listening to the voice of God, prayer, self-denial, reading the holy scriptures, and receiving the sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist. He gives brief practical descriptions of each, as well as some further discussion.

This seems to me such an obvious and straightforward response to the question I thought you were asking, that I rather suspect you're not asking what I thought you were asking!

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Theopesta]

how one should attract His Grace?
I think we can begin from reading the holy scriptures and participating on the Eucharist. They carry a great help to enlighten our inners.

St. Innocent gives 7 points about the gifts of the Holy spirit, I do not know he arrange them respectively in purpose or by chance : beginning from true faith and light till true fervent prayer.


the Holy Spirit brings true love which warms his heart. This love inspires a person to do good deeds....

The Holy Spirit corrects a worldly outlook and attitude...a true Christian does not become attached to anything temporary but considers himself a stranger in this world and wishes most of all to be in contact with God.....a person without the grace of the Holy Spirit, despite all his learning and capabilities, always remains a worshiper of the world and a slave of the flesh....

The Holy Spirit gives a Christian wisdom...Thus guided by the Holy Spirit, they will always find the time and the means for the salvation of their soul. Amid all the turmoils of the world and in spite of being busy, they will be able to collect their inner self to be with and pray to God. A non-spiritual person, on the other hand, cannot focus or pray sincerely, even in church...

Then, he goes on to the true joy and the undisturbable peace.
That is means I should have ,at first,the true living faith and light ... then secondly ,the true love which makes us found our true identity in the commendments not out...
then from step to step we will reach to what the true joy is as we will certainly taste it, but after we build our intercommunication with God.
As Dr. Mathew has said:


The symphonia of God-and-man is one of interaction, or more deeply, intercommunion, which involves both parties. This communion of relation is the very essence of human created nature, as St Innocent says of Adam, who 'having been created in the image and likeness of his Creator, had the most vital and close relationship with Him' (section 1). And it is this relation, Innocent notes, that is the foundation of man's 'happiness'.

[Rick Henry]

Dear Fr. Dcn. Matthew,

You are right, my last post was not easy to follow--sorry 'bout that--I was moving in three different directions there . . . I think I got excited after reading St. Innocent's sub-point #4 in this section and desired to interact with the different aspects of your last post as well as what he is saying in #4.

In an attempt to try to be more clear, when you wrote:




I'm not sure I follow your question, Rick. Are you implying that the text leaves one with 'only key phrases'? Or a discussion leaves these? What's this 'rubber meeting the road'? (I know the expression: I'm unsure in what sense you're asking it of the text -- what 'road' are you thinking of, and what 'value(s)' are you looking for?)



I would like to share also that one aspect of my last post represented a 'cry of the heart,' so to say, from me personally as it relates to exhortations for "authentic encounter" over the "psuedospiritual" when these same exhortations are not followed up with anything else. In this sense I was asking what is the 'value' or what is the benefit in this (implying not much)--actually this was somewhat of a rhetorical question, or lament, as much as it was a 'cri de coeur' from me. I think I was hoping yourself or others would weigh in on this and play off my quote from St. Innocent in point #4. I was quoting Anna's post with the word "psuedospiritual" and I was quoting other posts from Monachos when I used the term "authentic encounter." These are the key phrases which I was referring to which seem to always pop up in such conversations although without any development of what is being said. To be sure, I was NOT questioning St. Innocent's tract in this way. I am floored by this tract that you have graciously shared with us. Other than my former priest whom I quoted in the "Theology of Freedom vs. a Theology of Anxiety" thread, I have heard/read very little in Orthodoxy (viz. from the fathers or the saints) about what St. Innocent shares so clearly in point #4. It was very refreshing and a blessing. It seems, to date, in my experience with Eastern Orthodoxy there is almost an exclusion of such language as what is shared in #4, just as it has been my experience in Evangelicalism, in the past, whereby there is almost an exclusion of anything remotely resembling a eucharistic community. Hence my use of the word 'balance' as well. There are more than a few dynamics at play in this. However, hopefully this helps to explain some of where the 'rubber meets the road,' or where 'the ball meets the bat.' :)

And, when you write:




In terms of his text, St Innocent's point is that the gifts of the Spirit come most fully when one enters whole-heartedly into the ascetical 'making ready' of the person for his presence and grace. These are the 'requirements', inasmuch as they are the acts of preparation and preparedness by which we cease to battle against the Spirit.

Very succinctly, St Innocent lists them as: purity of heart and chastity, humility, listening to the voice of God, prayer, self-denial, reading the holy scriptures, and receiving the sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist. He gives brief practical descriptions of each, as well as some further discussion.



You demonstrate very clearly why I am excited to have discovered even a fragment of the work of St. Innocent. In some ways he reminds me of my limited exposure I have had with St. Theophan. As you say very succinctly he lays it out there boom-boom-boom, general principals in a way that cannot be denied, and in a way that carries great benefit for the seeker.

And as you conclude:




This seems to me such an obvious and straightforward response to the question I thought you were asking, that I rather suspect you're not asking what I thought you were asking!



:) . . . This does directly address some of what I was driving at, and what I was hoping to bring to light in this discussion for the purpose of attracting others here in order to take a closer look at what is being said by the saint. But, I think I will need to spend some more time reading St. Innocent--especially as he relates to an American Orthodoxy! ;)

Thanks again for the blessing you provide to all of us here through this forum and your presence. I know this must require a huge investment of time from you, Fr. Raphael and Fr. David, and it is appreciated.

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Rick,

Yes, it can certainly be the case that calls for authentic encounter, if not fuelled by pastoral guidance on its attainment, can easily end up being meaningless, or even counter-productive. Calls that cannot be met, since they give no tools for their meeting, end up frustrating rather than encouraging. Metropolitan Kallistos is fond of quoting an 'apothegm' relating to Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle: returning home for his church one morning, he is remembered as saying to his mother, 'I do not understand why the vicar goes on so in his sermons. If I were a priest, I would rise to the pulpit and say to the people: You know what you should do, now go and do it.' To this his mother replied, 'Ay, Thomas; but would you tell them how?'

One of the tell-tale signs of authentic patristic writing is its pastoral dimension: it is as much the 'what' as the 'how', since Christianity, which is a life lived in Christ, is always an act. This is why a focus on the fathers and their writings is important: they rarely offer abstract reflections on anything, without linking them directly to ascetical praxis. St Innocent is a good example of this, even in a very minor and small tract such as that at which we're looking.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Carrying on with the present section, here was one of the discussion-starter points I posted earlier:



As the question of reading and hearing the scriptures has recently been discussed in another thread, St Innocent's comments on receiving the Spirit through hearing the scriptures seems especially pertinent. What does he mean?


The relevant portion of the text itself is this:
"6. The Holy Spirit may be received by piously reading and listening to the Holy Scriptures. Being the Word of God, they hold a great treasury of spiritual enlightenment and wisdom. The Holy Scriptures are one of God’s greatest blessings, which can be used by anyone wishing to do so. In them, the divine wisdom is presented in such an easy, approachable manner that even the simplest and most uneducated person can understand it. Many cases are recorded throughout Church history and in the lives of the saints, in which the simplest of people, while studying Holy Scripture, were enlightened, became pious, and received abundant gifts of the Holy Spirit even while some scholars and intelligentsia read the Holy Scripture and became confused and fell into heresy. The difference was that while the first read it with simplicity of heart, seeking in it spiritual direction, the second approached it with criticism, attempting to uncover inconsistencies. Considering themselves wise and all-knowing, these last succumbed to pride and even became false teachers. Be aware that our small and imperfect intellect cannot encompass God’s wisdom. God enlightens those who with a pure and kind heart turn to Him in search of enlightenment. Therefore, in reading the Holy Scriptures, lay aside all worldly wisdom and inquisitiveness. Submit to the word and the will of Him who speaks to you through Holy Scripture, and beseech Jesus Christ to enlighten you and show you the path to salvation.


"There are many other books besides Holy Scripture that are beneficial for reading: the works of the Holy Fathers, the lives of the saints, inspirational stories, sermons, and other praiseworthy writings of Orthodox authors. From the books available to you, read those that are based on Holy Scripture and are in accord with the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Beware of those poisoned by heresies and non-Christian ideas."
This seems a particularly interesting text, especially given several recent conversations in the forum (e.g. 'The Confession of Dositheus - Are we allowed to read the bible? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4632)' and 'Textual / historical criticism (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4596)', amongst others).

St Innocent raises the fact that reading of the scriptures is an ascetical opportunity for engagement with the Holy Spirit -- that reading the scriptures is 'spiritual', since through it one readies oneself for the Spirit's presence and movement. But he notes very expressly that this isn't simply reading: it in approach to reading. One 'attracts the Spirit's grace' in reading the scriptures, by reading in humility of heart and mind. The scriptures might be read simply like a book, any book; but they are spiritually powerful, and reading them is ascetically transformative, when they are approached in a spirit of 'submission to the word and the will of Him who speaks to you'. Approached in this way -- this way of obedience and humility -- the scriptures are such, St Innocent says, that any person, whatever the stature of intellect, can receive true spiritual enlightenment through them; for in the spirit of obedience, it is not the intellect that concocts truth, but the Spirit himself who reveals it.

I would be curious for discussion of St Innocent's comments on the study of scripture, as contained in this passage.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Theopesta]

In one of saint Issak the ascetic books, he said the solitery monk can use the Holy Scriptures, and all holy writtings not onlyt to kindle the spirit of prayer, but also, learn him how to pray; I think this is the true enlightment and praying in spirit.

Here, St. Inoccent, said, more or less,but by another way the same thought. And, he gives us how to read also, which determines if that reading is spiritual or not.

his fruit was sweet to my taste
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

[Nina]

I agree both with Saint Innocent's words and your comments Father about the study of the Scripture.

I like the freedom that Saint Innocent gives (along with warnings) as in here...


There are many other books besides Holy Scripture that are beneficial for reading: the works of the Holy Fathers, the lives of the saints, inspirational stories, sermons, and other praiseworthy writings of Orthodox authors.

...since often I find myself unable to understand what the Bible is exactly saying. Until my enlightenment (as St. Innocent says that we receive by God's will) which might be far away, at least I know that Fathers are there as stars guiding me in my darkness.

As St. Innocent also advises we must approach Scripture with simplicity. This can be natural for those who posses humility. However there is another category (where I might be the only member) where humility is not so easy. Therefore commentaries of Fathers about the Holy Scripture, or their work in general (which is filled with explanations and references from the Bible) prove very helpful to achieve what St. Innocent urges here:


Therefore, in reading the Holy Scriptures, lay aside all worldly wisdom and inquisitiveness

This is for my friend Richard/Alban, if he reads this, since in the Dositheus' thread I did not explain myself fully: By saying that I rely on Fathers' explanation I do not mean to say that I do not read the Bible, or that I should not read the Bible. I do love to read the Bible, and it is not even a matter for discussion. Actually when I was in high school and the workload was tremendous and I had to study way past midnight, I had promised that I would not go to sleep without reading at least one chapter from the Bible, besides what I was reading during the day as time allowed.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Theopesta, above you wrote:


In one of saint Issak the ascetic books, he said the solitery monk can use the Holy Scriptures, and all holy writtings not onlyt to kindle the spirit of prayer, but also, learn him how to pray; I think this is the true enlightment and praying in spirit.

This seems a very important observation: the relationship of scripture as a locus of spiritual communion, to scripture as the ascetical tool that leads to that communion. Since they are the written encounter with the Word of God, the scriptures 'hold a great treasury of spiritual enlightenment and wisdom', in St Innocent's words; but this treasury of scripture is unlocked through the experience of scripture in a genuine spirit. 'Submit to the word and the will of Him who speaks to you through Holy Scripture, and beseech Jesus Christ to enlighten you and show you the path to salvation', St Innocent notes. It is in encountering the scriptures in humility, that one learns how to find greater humility, for one encounters the Humble Son in the Spirit of truth.

Many thanks for the observation.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Nina, you wrote:


I like the freedom that Saint Innocent gives (along with warnings) as in here...

There are many other books besides Holy Scripture that are beneficial for reading: the works of the Holy Fathers, the lives of the saints, inspirational stories, sermons, and other praiseworthy writings of Orthodox authors....since often I find myself unable to understand what the Bible is exactly saying. Until my enlightenment (as St. Innocent says that we receive by God's will) which might be far away, at least I know that Fathers are there as stars guiding me in my darkness.

This relationship of the writings of the fathers to the scriptures is an interesting point in St Innocent's text. He connects their writings with the scriptures in the spirit of being spiritually and pastorally beneficial, without suggesting that the writings of the fathers always are, or need to be, based on or directly commentaries of the scriptures. They are beneficial not so much because they are somehow connected to the scriptures, but because they are written with the same blessing of the Holy Spirit.

But St Innocent's focus on simplicity, and the fact that his tract is written as a missionary booklet for catechumens, does cause him to help focus in the fathers for 'newcomers' to Christian reading. Amongst the enormous corpus of patristic texts, he says 'from the books available to you, read those that are based on Holy Scripture and are in accord with the teaching of the Orthodox Church.' Clearly he aims to root out non-Christian literature; but it also seems to me that he is giving some helpful guidance on a 'way in' to the fathers: begin with those texts from their writings that are related directly to the scriptures, rather than the patristic writings that deal with other issues -- which in fact, when understood properly, emerge out of that scriptural consciousness of the fathers themselves. This seems especially pertinent in the modern day, when the writings of the fathers on all topics are available so easily in print (and now electronically). While this is a great blessing in so many ways, it does mean that the approach to the writings of the fathers, which for most of the Church's history has been something undergone in a pastoral relationship with an elder or teacher, now has the potential to be something of a free-for-all, with people picking up whatever texts sound the most interesting, without necessarily having a grounded pattern of approach to the sacred writings of the fathers. Look at the evidence of this in the number of people who take, almost as 'first readings' in the fathers, writings on visions of the divine light, hesychastic techniques of prayer, hypostatic personhood, etc.

St Innocent's advice seems extremely sound: start in the writings of the fathers that are directly related to the scriptures. Come to see the scriptures in a patristic framework. Work in this way to gain the mind of the fathers to the scriptures, and through them of the world. And then, when this is developing, the other writings of the fathers emerge as helpful beacons and guides, rather than tools of an 'idle curiosity' (to hark to the words of the prayer of St Ephrem, which we've been addressing in another thread).

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Nina]

Yes Father. Also what you write is the method (looking back) that my spiritual advisers used when assigning spiritual reading material to us.



They are beneficial not so much because they are somehow connected to the scriptures, but because they are written with the same blessing of the Holy Spirit.Yes. I forgot to say this also.


Look at the evidence of this in the number of people who take, almost as 'first readings' in the fathers, writings on visions of the divine light, hesychastic techniques of prayer, hypostatic personhood, etc.Yes. When I heard from a friend who had just converted to Orthodoxy and was reading the 'Ladder' I was amazed and said: "Wow! You are advanced!" I haven't read the "Ladder" until now, however my spiritual father and spiritual mother (a nun) explained the icon to me and friends when we had spiritual talks (in such talks we did not actually talk, but just listened - however when we had questions we always asked and sometime we had gatherings when we would comment on the readings but under guidance). And of course there is the occasional quote from St. John of the Ladder that was told to us, but other than that we were not advised to read the 'Ladder'.

The very first spiritual readings were only lives of the saints, or saints' extended biographies. Nothing else. Often this sister (the nun) would prepare didactic Orthodox material illustrated richly with sayings from the Fathers, or material about the feastday we were celebrating and distribute it to us as a kind of homework to read at home after the talks. They always told us to read the Bible and as St. Innocent says to approach it with simplicity and humility.

Later, much later, they told us to read teachings of saints like the teachings of St. Kosmas Aetolos, St. Seraphim of Sarov, Papa Demetrios Gagastathis, Geronda Paisios and so on. My spiritual father gave me for feastdays later on books like "The Life in Christ' of St. Nicholas Cabasilas and so on. Or when we were at the sister's monastery bookstore, she was pointing out books for us. But it took a long time to graduate to that level actually. However we were not adults at that point and I can understand that an adult might be even more prepared (although a recent convert) to read advanced books because of the longer exposure to religion and experience. However, in any case as you say, this should be under the guidance of a spiritual adviser even if only in case questions arise during readings. For instance I also have a question about this:


Clearly he [St. Innocent] aims to root out non-Christian literature; Why?

[RichardWorthington]

This is for my friend Richard/Alban, if he reads this, since in the Dositheus' thread I did not explain myself fully: By saying that I rely on Fathers' explanation I do not mean to say that I do not read the Bible, or that I should not read the Bible. I do love to read the Bible, and it is not even a matter for discussion.

Né Richard; Né Alban in Baptism - that's me!!

Thank you for this.

On a note actually related to this thread, I did read St innocent's "Pathway to the Kingdom of Heaven" many years ago. I found it very good, but not totally speaking to me from my Evangelical background; however, he was not writing for such as me!

I read it in a book called "Alaskan Missionary Spirituality", which talked about him and St Herman and their lives. One thing I remember most is that the native 'creation story' started - putting it into Genesis terminology - "In the beginning, it was warm ..."!

Richard