St John of the Cross

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

I am attempting to put together an outline of Ascent of Mount Carmel/Dark Night of the Soul before I give these a hard read.

I have read sections of these in the past, but not straight through.

But, the point is, as I try to put together an outline of this I realize how ignorant I am of his works. And, I am hoping that some can help me get a headstart on this project.

1.) Is "Dark Night of the Soul" one of the books/chapters in Ascent of Mount Carmel?

2.) In the introductions to these two books that I have, which are edited by Peers (DNOS) and Carrigan (AOMC) a rough outline is offered, but they are not clear to me (especially Peers in my opinion).


Any help with these two questions, even a rough outline would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
In Christ,
Rick

[Michael Stickles]

Rick,

Dark Night of the Soul is not one of the chapters (or books) in Ascent of Mt. Carmel, but it was intended and written as a continuation of the earlier work. Ascent deals with the dark nights of sense and spirit and the active night of the memory and will, while the other deals with (as the title says) the dark night of the soul.

If for "outline" a detailed table of contents will do, the TOC pages for these books at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library might help, since they list each book's and chapter's descriptive header:

TOC for Ascent of Mt. Carmel (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/john_cross/ascent.toc.html)
TOC for Dark Night of the Soul (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/john_cross/dark_night.toc.html)

Here's a small section from the start of Ascent to give you an idea of what they're like:

Book The First. Wherein is described the nature of dark night and how necessary it is to pass through it to Divine union; and in particular this book describes the dark night of sense, and desire, and the evils which these work in the soul.
Book the First.
Chapter I. Sets down the first stanza. Describes two different nights through which spiritual persons pass, according to the two parts of man, the lower and the higher. Expounds the stanza which follows.
Chapter II. Explains the nature of this dark night through which the soul says that it has passed on the road to union.
Chapter III. Speaks of the first cause of this night, which is that of the privation of the desire in all things, and gives the reason for which it is called night.The copies used at CCEL are both the Peers editions, so the Intros will be what you've already seen.

In Christ,
Mike

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Rick,
Peace of Christ!




I am attempting to put together an outline of Ascent of Mount Carmel/Dark Night of the Soul before I give these a hard read.

There is a 1979 translation by Rev. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. of the "Collected works of St. John of the Cross" ... Not sure if you are aware of this translation. It has, in my opinion a very good outline of both the Ascent and the Dark Night.


I have read sections of these in the past, but not straight through.

But, the point is, as I try to put together an outline of this I realize how ignorant I am of his works. And, I am hoping that some can help me get a headstart on this project.

If you seriously wish to construct a "new" outline of the Ascent and of the Dark Night, I suggest that you prayerfully read through the said works before you attempt to make a "new" outline. St. John of the Cross writtings are deep spiritual works, surely not academia. So, a deep reverence before the WORD expressed should be in order.



1.) Is "Dark Night of the Soul" one of the books/chapters in Ascent of Mount Carmel?

2.) In the introductions to these two books that I have, which are edited by Peers (DNOS) and Carrigan (AOMC) a rough outline is offered, but they are not clear to me (especially Peers in my opinion).

The Collected Works include besides the Ascent and the Night, the Canticle, the Living Flame, as well as Minor Works and Poetry.

In the past I read and prayed these texts extensively. Today, they are on my book shelves. I am now trying to spend more time on the Eastern Fathers of the Church.

Hope these few words help,

marie_duquette

[Father David Moser]

I guess I am wondering why an Orthodox Christian would wish to invest so much time and energy into a work of Roman Catholic spirituality. Sure there is some "good stuff" in there, but it is mixed with the R/C errors as well. Why sort through these works when there is an abundance of truly Orthodox spiritual writings that are without that taint?

Just asking the question...
Fr David Moser

[Rick H.]

Dear Marie, Dear Mike, Dear Father David, and Dear All:

Marie--As usual, your few words are very helpful! Thanks much for this. I was not aware of the help from Rev. Kavanaugh, this is good to know. And, actually, I am not interested in a new outline, I will be happy to obtain an existing one as a matter of fact :)

On a side note, I read somewhere that if you take from the work of one person then that is stealing! But, if you take from the work of a group of people, then that is research! But, in this case, I am happy to find any helps as you have well provided--Thanks.

Mike--When I read your answer, I thought to myself, "jackpot!" Thanks for the clear answers, I think I am good to go now. The fog seems to be clearing quickly now. You are turning out to be the go-to-guy here--thank you very much!

Father David--While I will not presume to speak for any others, depending on how you look at it, at the present I am either blessed or cursed with having an abundance of time and energy to read/study. So it is not possibly as taxing of a thing for me, all things considered. But, ultimately, I read first hand sources as much as possible to know what has been presented for myself. John of the Cross is quoted widely, and there has been the suggestion of a definite Sufi influence in his writing/thinking (mostly due to his mother's Islamic faith and where he grew up in Spain), so I want to read through this and know for myself. Otherwise, I am at the mercy of what others say, or I am limited by the adaptation of his works by others, and in this sense I only know what I am told. (insert eek icon)

Honestly, though, I do hope to find a blessing or two through this process. As well, I was under the impression, from my limited perspective, that John of the Cross was well received in the Orthodox Faith as was the Roman Catholic monk, Lorenzo Scupoli? In fact, I was a part of a study group at my church last year where we used a book by Father Jack Sparks, "Victory in Unseen Warfare" who supposedly was walking us through Scupoli's work. But, here, I have not read the original by Scupoli (don't speak Italian), and I have not read any translations, so I don't know for myself how much our study paralleled Scupoli's work.

But, now as we consider such things as original texts, translations, and "adaptations" we are treading closely to what I have come to call "An Orthodox Bibliology." And, from what has been shared in the Orthodox Study Bible thread in the past about the method used for the OSB project, and what is being shared in the KJV thread now (especially about the method(s) used for the LXX . . . possibly it is time for an examination of "An Orthodox Bibliology?"

Dear All,

Any further insights as to how John of the Cross is received within Orthodoxy would be much appreciated. As well any other helps that one may care to share will be well received by me as well. Especially, as it relates to any links or thought/influence on St. John by Sufi thought and Sufi poetry, I would like to understand this better.

In Christ,
Rick

[Father David Moser]

Father David--While I will not presume to speak for any others, depending on how you look at it, at the present I am either blessed or cursed with having an abundance of time and energy to read/study.

Well, I guess I would call that a blessing - would that I had not only the time but also the discipline to use the time that I do have to read and study more.


John of the Cross is quoted widely, and there has been the suggestion of a definite Sufi influence in his writing/thinking (mostly due to his mother's Islamic faith and where he grew up in Spain), so I want to read through this and know for myself.

Well, that kind of creates a context for your study that I did not have before so I guess it does answer my "wondering"


Honestly, though, I do hope to find a blessing or two through this process. As well, I was under the impression, from my limited perspective, that John of the Cross was well received in the Orthodox Faith as was the Roman Catholic monk, Lorenzo Scupoli? In fact, I was a part of a study group at my church last year where we used a book by Father Jack Sparks, "Victory in Unseen Warfare" who supposedly was walking us through Scupoli's work. But, here, I have not read the original by Scupoli (don't speak Italian), and I have not read any translations, so I don't know for myself how much our study paralleled Scupoli's work.

The book, Unseen Warfare, as we have it today is not the text written by Scupoli - but rather a rewrite of a rewrite. Scupoli's text, written, I believe after the schism but at a time when the western roman church was still in many ways close to Orthodoxy was then translated and adapted to Orthodox use by St Nikodemous of the Holy Mountain and then St Nikodemous' text was retranslated and modified by St Theophan the Recluse. St Thophan's text was again translated into English in the last century. Thus while the core of Unseen Warfare may be that written by Scupoli, it has been "orthodoxized" by two great ascetic saints. As for John of the Cross, I too have heard of some in Orthodox circles who view him sympathetically, however, I don't know of anyone who seriously recommends him above Orthodox ascetic writers.

I am certain that you will find some "gems" in the course of your study and hope that it is helpful to you.

Fr David Moser

[Olga]

As well, I was under the impression, from my limited perspective, that John of the Cross was well received in the Orthodox Faith as was the Roman Catholic monk, Lorenzo Scupoli?

.... Any further insights as to how John of the Cross is received within Orthodoxy would be much appreciated.

He was a Carmelite friar who lived in the mid- to late 1500s. It is very unlikely that he would be recognised as a saint of the Orthodox Church, and his name does not appear in any of the lists I have at hand.

[Andreas Moran]

I entirely agree with Father David - Roman saints such as John of the Cross (and Francis of Assisi and Ignatius Loyola) are not Orthodox, and were in error (prelest, some say). There's no shortage of sound Orthodox material to read, and prayers and services to be said. And if anyone were to spend half the time that St Seraphim of Sarov did reading the Gospels, there would be no time to dabble in such things. Such intellectual curiosity disperses the nous and so inhibits prayer.

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

I think we have sufficiently established the fact that:

1.) St. John of the Cross was a Roman Catholic monk, and is recognized as a saint by the RC church.

2.) He was not an Eastern Orthodox monk, and is not recognized as a saint by the EO church.

And, it appears that some Orthodox brothers and sisters view John sympathetically, while other Orthodox folks would use the word prelest in the same sentence with John's name :) So, that's about par for the course I think, in terms of a consensus.

And, we even had a suggestion that: "Such intellectual curiosity disperses the nous and so inhibits prayer," which will possibly be better addressed in the Orthodox Epistemology thread.

But, if any may have some concrete examples of the blessings in John's writing, or something to support the charge of prelest in John's writing, possibly we could share these. Especially, as it relates to the charge of prelest, are we just parrotting what we have heard from others here, or do we really know what we are talking about? Again, I am reminded of one who takes his case to a court of law, but has no evidence to support what he is saying. This person will either be reprimanded by the judge for wasting everyone's time, or he will be laughed out of court--or maybe both.



In Christ,
Rick

[Andreas Moran]

First, I ask forgiveness if the way I expressed myself in my post sounded abrasive.

Secondly, this forum is not a court of law.

Thirdly, everyone can do as he pleases in his own life.

However, as this forum is for discussion of 'Orthodoxy through Patristic, Monastic & Liturgical Studies', it could be thought inapt to consider someone who is not Orthodox, whose writings, therefore, are not patristic, and who is part of a heterodox monastic and liturgical tradition. I would have thought it unnecessary to adduce evidence in this context - surely we know why we are Orthodox and not something else. But there is no shortage of material that explains the errors of the Roman spiritual tradition: articles by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) are but two about this. St Ignatius Brianchaninov deals with Francis of Assisi in particular in 'The Arena', ch. 11. The Roman tradition is said to be given to the sensuous and to imagination. I find error in the Roman way illustrated by Therese of Lisieux (whose mentor was John of the Cross) when she says, 'I considered that I was born for glory and when I searched out the means of attaining it, God made me understand my own glory would not be evident to the eyes of mortals, that it would consist in becoming a great saint! . . . God alone, content with my weak efforts, will raise me to Himself and make me a saint.' I'm sure no Orthodox saint said anything like that. By contrast, the 'Sayings of the Desert Fathers' has this: 'The old men used to say "when we glorify ourselves God withdraws his protection from us and we are lost"'. Abba Matoes said, 'the nearer a man draws to God, the more he sees himself a sinner'. And St Isaac the Syrian said, 'the truly righteous always consider themselves unworthy of God'. Everyone else here is more widely read than I and could doubtless cite further sayings which would better draw the contrast.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Andreas is correct. Unless we are engaged in a project only of comparison, in which case normally we are talking about apologetics, we should not go outside of the Church for inspiration.

We have had discussions here many times about the fact that good is found outside of the Church. These discussions usually end up being very balanced in terms of where God can be found outside of the Church.

According to the Fathers however we should not go outside the Church for guidance and inspiration. This is due not to there being nothing of worth outside of the Church but rather to a need for discernment- it will be many years before we know how to separate wheat from chaff. The danger is that we can be led deeply astray not just in specific points which the Church does not hold to. Of equal risk is that we do not have that savour of the Church within us which comes from a commitment to a way of life that at first can seem very restricted but which in time opens out into the only way of recognizing what is good around us and knowing how to interact with it.

If we die to ourselves then we will not only find good- and in the most unexpected places; we will instill good into the world. Try to do this the other way around and we will betray our basic Christian calling to the world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Father Raphael, your blessing,

I am not correct - the Church is correct.

[Rick H.]

From 'Hearsay' to a Blurring of the Topic




And, it appears that some Orthodox brothers and sisters view John sympathetically, while other Orthodox folks would use the word prelest in the same sentence with John's name :) So, that's about par for the course I think, in terms of a consensus.

But, if any may have some concrete examples of the blessings in John's writing, or something to support the charge of prelest in John's writing, possibly we could share these. Especially, as it relates to the charge of prelest, are we just parroting what we have heard from others here, or do we really know what we are talking about? Again, I am reminded of one who takes his case to a court of law, but has no evidence to support what he is saying. This person will either be reprimanded by the judge for wasting everyone's time, or he will be laughed out of court--or maybe both.



Dear All,

I am reprinting the lion's share of my last post because what I have said still stands.

Some Orthodox view the writings of John of the Cross sympathetically, some less than sympathetically.

And, I think it is interesting that when we ask for concrete examples, found within *John's writing*, of why some find blessings or why others would hurl anathemas . . . we still receive no direct evidence to support what has been said about John of the Cross, but instead there is only a blurring of the view, viz. conversation is offered about St. Francis in addition to the previously mentioned St. Ignatius of Loyola, and Therese of Lisieux.

This thread is about St. John of the Cross.

And, while this type of methodology (whereby one attempts to blur the focus of a conversation from the very beginning) usually indicates an extremely weak position to argue from, on the part of the one who attempts to blur the focus right off the bat, the next move is possibly more familiar in such conversations as these when we get to the point where the rubber meets the road. In other words, next we see in this thread, a move is made towards Roman Catholicism in general, and here the microscope which has been bumped/blurred is exchanged for a pair of binoculars from which to view our topic (which is St. John of the Cross BTW).

And, while they can be entertaining, these techniques are not new. We see these employed in various fields--on the football field for example this is called an "end run." When an end run is called in the huddle, everyone on the line shifts right or left and then the ball is handed off to the running back who runs either left or right and tries to run completely around the defense and down the side line to score. When the defense does not recognize this play, it is a thing of beauty to watch the running back sail around and down and then into the end zone. But, when the defense does recognize this play, it is sometimes comical to watch almost the entire other team jump on the running back.

So, I would like to suggest very clearly here that "the emperor has no clothes." Or, in other words, there is nothing correct about what has been said about St. John the Cross, most recently, because nothing has been said about St. John of the Cross (which is the topic of this thread).

And, from this place of non-conversation about the topic, Father Raphael introduces the thought that unless we are doing a project of only comparison usually for the purposes of apologetics:





. . . we should not go outside of the Church for inspiration.




and, I surely would not want to defend this statement just as it is made. This discussion takes us from the binoculars to the telescope now I think (possibly even a Hubble telescope). As, Father Raphael continues:




According to the Fathers however we should not go outside the Church for guidance and inspiration.



I am reminded about a quote elsewhere where we were instructed by another to:


"not read anything unless it drives you to your knees in prayer."

And, now I want to give everyone advance warning here to run for your storm shelters and basements! Go now, don't take anything with you. Because the last time someone disagreed with what Father Raphael said there was lightening and thunder . . . and if I remember correctly there was even a cyclone. But, I am going to say in both cases here (since the conversation has been widened so much at the present),whether, it is regarding the restriction on reading above, or the restriction on where to find guidance and inspiration, I disagree very strongly with both of these statements.

The second statement about only reading what drives us to our knees in prayer is (and I'm sorry) ridiculous! The first statement about not going outside the Church for guidance and inspiration needs exploration and clarification, but as it is presented as a broad sweeping statement--who could agree with it?

Surely, no one who has seen the little yellow crocus in Marie's backyard could agree with this statement. Surely, no one who has seen what can only be seen with a microscope can deny inspiration when considering the Creator of these microorganisms. Surely, no one who has looked at the universe through a telescope in the middle of the night on a cloudless night away from the bright lights of a city would agree!

But, now I realize that we have started another thread here. So, after posting this response, God willing, I will type up the intro to a new thread that deals with such things as are seen with binoculars and telescopes . . .

And, as for this thread, possibly we can have our first real "contribution" made that provides some clear evidence or support for why some Orthodox view St. John of the Cross as being a vehicle of blessing and why some view him as being a vehicle of error (and as 'some' say a manifestation of prelest).

There are clearly (at least) two different schools of thought here as it relates to St. John of the Cross, I wonder if we could hear from a representation of both of these schools. And, hopefully, with something other than hearsay. Because as has been said above, this is not a court of law, but after a while, hearsay (a repetition of out of court statements) becomes as unhelpful and distracting here as it does there.

St. John of the Cross anyone? . . .

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify." 1 Corinthians 10:23

Everything necessary for salvation is found within the Holy Orthodox Church. If we are working out our personal salvation, then I think the advice of Fr. Raphael is efficacious. It certainly would take more than a lifetime to absorb all the gifts of all the Orthodox writers that are available to us. And it takes a great deal of discernment to know what is good and what is not so good in the writings of those who do not have the Good Orthodox Spirit-keeping Seal of Approval (TM).

But if one feels that they have achieved a mature phronema, and a sound understanding of Orthodox teaching, then at least one father has expressed an opinion that the writings of even pagan philosophers can be useful. But it sounds like one of those "discernment" sort of things, and perhaps not applicable to everyone. The Apostle Paul also goes on to talk about food, but what we put in our minds is just as important as what we put in our mouths, or so it seems to this simple mind.

[Mourad Mankarios]

I wonder if there is such a grave danger in pondering the writings of St John of the Cross simply because he is from the Roman Catholic tradtion.

What then would we say of St Isaac the Syrian, a Nestorian bishop. Or of other earlier fathers of the church such as Origen, Tertullian and Evagrius?

What more would we say of the Blessed Augustine or of modern day writers such as Fr Seraphim Rose?

And what also of all of those fathers who fell captive to scholastic theology, and which is manifested in their writings in some form or another, namely St Nicholas Cabasilas?

I wonder should we scrap all of these off our reading list as well?

[Michael Stickles]

Rick,

I've read both Ascent of Mt. Carmel and Dark Night of the Soul. For what my poor opinion is worth they are experientially rich, doctrinally poor like most of the RC stuff I have read. I guess I have said this before but the divide between the contemplative and theological schools in the RC makes the contemplative writers of the RC a much poorer read then the Orthodox saints.

His books are full of off the wall allegory and romantic imagery. There are a lot of things that could have been said much more simply. And in fact you find them said much more clearly and simply in the Fathers. I agree with Fr. Raphael, for devotional reading skip this. However if you are looking to broaden your view of the whole contemplative tradition and mindset it can be helpful.

Things I found helpful -the emphasis on not getting caught up with spiritual experiences -focus on striving toward true union with God. Also, he has some interesting insights into different kinds of union in Ascent Book II chapt V.

Traps I had to watch out for. -The Catholic conception of union fails to see the unlimited potentiality and presents it in terms of being some end point, some state of being one reaches. There were other problems with it too but I don't remember them. His writing style is so convoluted it can be hard to follow.



This is due not to there being nothing of worth outside of the Church but rather to a need for discernment- it will be many years before we know how to separate wheat from chaff. The danger is that we can be led deeply astray not just in specific points which the Church does not hold to


I would say that trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in John's writings is particularly hard both because of his writing style and also because he really is such a dedicated ascetic and true child of Christ. The errors are subtle and hard to disentangle from. I would rate him as much closer to Orthodoxy then Merton, though.

Oops! I didn't look when I got on and didn't realize I was using Mike's log in. This post is by Celinda

In Christ,
Celinda Grace

[Kieran P.]

The charge of prelest is one which Orthodox writers have hurled at Catholic saints, I would say, out of ignorance of Catholic spirituality.

For instance, a poster levelled the charge against St Therese of Lisieux for her style of writing, and compared her unfavourably with the ascetic saint Seraphim. However, such a charge could be equally laid at St Seraphim's door, for his assertion that he'd help people from beyond the grave.

Was he so certain that his sinful life would never the less guarantee him passage to heaven and such a place of favour? Who knows?

But we know he was a saint, and he lived a life of sanctity according to his tradition and his temperament. Catholic saints who've been mentioned here are Spanish, Italian, given to an absolutely different mode of expression.

As for St John of the Cross, I haven't read his work, though I hopefully will. He was a mystic, a poet and a man who understood in great technical depth the spiritual path of the Catholic.

Someday, please God, we'll grow a great understanding of how the Holy Spirit has called us, and be proper local churches - and one universal Church.

God bless

[Herman Blaydoe]

What then would we say of St Isaac the Syrian, a Nestorian bishop. Or of other earlier fathers of the church such as Origen, Tertullian and Evagrius?

Why would we say anything different than what the Church says? Most of the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian have been accepted by the Church as fully Orthodox and efficacious. The Church has also said that while much of what Origen and Tertullian writes is useful from a historic standpoint, their theology is not so useful.

Does the Church endorse the writings of Juan de la Cruz? If not, then why bother with it when there are so many other writers that clearly espouse an efficacious spirituality. While there may well be meaningful literature outside the Church, are Orthodox writers so few in number or are we such voracious readers that everything within the Church has already been read, assimilated and incorporated into practice? Is the quality of Orthodox spiritual writings such that going "outside" is necessary?

[Andreas Moran]

Precisely, Herman.

[Nina]

For instance, a poster levelled the charge against St Therese of Lisieux for her style of writing, and compared her unfavourably with the ascetic saint Seraphim. However, such a charge could be equally laid at St Seraphim's door, for his assertion that he'd help people from beyond the grave.

Was he so certain that his sinful life would never the less guarantee him passage to heaven and such a place of favour? Who knows?


We know. Because we know the power of prayer.
St. Seraphim of Sarov (May God have mercy on us through his intercessions!) was a man of prayer and not a man of sinful life (as you say). He spent 1,000 days and night on a stone praying, exposed to all natural agents and elements. He is one of the pillars of prayer in Christianity. When he passed away, his body was found in a praying position in front of the icons.

I do not mean to compare between the sayings because for me personally those sayings are incomparable (as are the two of them), however in the saying of Therese of Lisieux



'I considered that I was born for glory and when I searched out the means of attaining it, God made me understand my own glory would not be evident to the eyes of mortals, that it would consist in becoming a great saint! . . . God alone, content with my weak efforts, will raise me to Himself and make me a saint.'one can notice how prevalent the words 'I', 'saint', 'me', 'my' are.

If one compares those, to the words 'help you' of the saying of the Saint Seraphim of Sarov, the altruistic spirit of Saint Seraphim's words will be very clear even to an atheist.

Saint Seraphim is not a fleeting image, and a pococurante character in history's gallery. Praying immovably 1,000 days (in Russia's weather) on a stone are not easy. Even 1,000 minutes are not. Everything because of a deep and burning love for God and the people. To the same people he promised his continuous prayers always for their welfare and for their salvation.

[Kornelius]

The charge of prelest is one which Orthodox writers have hurled at Catholic saints, I would say, out of ignorance of Catholic spirituality.

For instance, a poster levelled the charge against St Therese of Lisieux for her style of writing, and compared her unfavourably with the ascetic saint Seraphim. However, such a charge could be equally laid at St Seraphim's door, for his assertion that he'd help people from beyond the grave.

From the life of Theresa I gather that her canonization was not primarily due to her life's spiritual achievements but rather due to advertisement and promotion from her three real sisters who happened to share with Theresa the same monastery as nuns. There is obviously a conflict of interest.

When other nuns from the monastery unrelated to Theresa were asked about her works or any posthumous miracle (a criteria for canonization) there was none to be found. There are even modern Catholics who have distanced themselves from her.

She was an overemotional and over sensitive child, who later in life as a nun even contemplated suicide while sick. I understand that pain may be insufferable for the rest of us, but I have never heard of an orthodox martyr to contemplate suicide in the midst of torture and suffering. Other times as despondency was creeping over her she would say: "Jesus isn't doing much to keep the conversation going." Both despondency and suicide thoughts happened to her near the end of her life, as she was battling her sickness. This is not what the spirituality of a saint appears to be at the end of the saint's life.

The other thing to be noted is that she always fantasized about becoming a saint. Sainthood is not the starting premise in the life of orthodox saints. This is the least in their mind. I have never heard an orthodox saint express during their lifetime a desire for sainthood, and this is not out of fake modesty and self-deprecation. You see being a saint involves an interesting paradox. You never know that you are a saint. Sainthood happens by the grace of Christ at the moment of one's outmost humility, realizing one's sinfulness as more profound and transcendent of all mankind's sinfulness. A saint never wishes sainthood, and all the recognition that comes with it. A saint wants a union with Christ, by approaching Him not in the capacity of a saint but as the lowliest creature on earth. The more sinful one genuinely believes to be the more one approaches sainthood; hence the paradox.

I don’t want to elaborate on St. Seraphim of Sarov, since Nina has already done that, but based on the accurate description of the saint she gives, I would like to say that a comparison between the latter and Theresa is impossible.

[Kieran P.]

Hi Nina and Kornelius,


St. Seraphim of Sarov (May God have mercy on us through his intercessions!) was a man of prayer and not a man of sinful life (as you say).

Sorry, are you saying that St Seraphim was a man whose life was without sin? Truly unique, eh? St Paul tells us that there's no righteous man, but you tell us that St Seraphim was a man without life was without sin. I doubt he'd make such a claim for himself.

A sinful life is a vague term - perhaps a man may pursue virtue and fall into sin by his efforts? God alone can judge, but I certainly never would try to, whether they are Catholic or Orthodox.

I never criticised him - I happen to rate him very highly. I've read his beautiful Russian Philokalia and it was a great source of inspiration to me.

I also didn't criticise him for saying that we can be sure that if we stand at his grave and ask him to intercede for us that our prayers will be answered. I'm sure he told the truth here.

My point was that it could very easily be seen as a sign of presumption on his part, similar to the ones you all accuse the Catholics of.

Christianity is not a religion which simply reflects an Eastern ascetic. We are not all born to behave like practical, ascetic Russians. Some Christians are Africans, Chinese, Latin American, Irish, Italian, and so forth, they may live joyfully and wave their arms with expressiveness in the burning heat - far from the winter colds of Russia - and they're all called to be saints.

To acknowledge this fact is not vanity or pride on our part - it's common sense. We are all called to be saints.

That St Seraphim spent twenty years in the Russian cold is a matter of legend. I've read of Indian fakirs who do such feats of apparently crazed endurance. What about Catholic saints? I can quote you examples there, also. We even have orders which are based around mans ability to isolate himself from community and spend his life in prayer.


A saint wants a union with Christ, by approaching Him not in the capacity of a saint but as the lowliest creature on earth. The more sinful one genuinely believes to be the more one approaches sainthood; hence the paradox.

I have yet to read or hear of even one Catholic saint who didn't consider themselves to be the most wretched of sinners, lower than the very lowest. But they also have joy in their faith and gratitude for what Christ has done for us.

Quoting St Therese prejudicially is unfortunate, since she's correct in what she says:


God alone, content with my weak efforts, will raise me to Himself and make me a saint.'

This is confidence, not arrogance. She served people diligently in her life and was canonised not simply because of the exuberance of her writing, but because she lived a life of heroic virtue.

For the record, her style of writing isn't my bag, but she was only a teenager when she wrote such stuff, aflame with love for her Spouse and beyond criticism, I say, for that.

I often read Orthodox lietrature and I'm saddened by the narrow mindedness of their approach to Catholic spirituality. I say this as someone who yearns for union between the Churches and has great faith in your saints.

The style is different to the east, but if we look prejudicially at either, we may certainly draw the wrong conclusions about both.

God bless us all

[Nina]

Hi Nina
Sorry, are you saying that St Seraphim was a man whose life was without sin? Truly unique, eh? St Paul tells us that there's no righteous man, but you tell us that St Seraphim was a man without life was without sin. I doubt he'd make such a claim for himself.

I am sure you know what I meant, but in case you do not, please do not refer to St. Seraphim and say "his sinful life". That is not appropriate to say. You can say a sinner, but not "sinful life". That is what I was reacting to. And if you say God is the judge then it goes for both ways.


My point was that it could very easily be seen as a sign of presumption on his part, similar to the ones you all accuse the Catholics of.

No, I did not accuse any Catholic of presumption. It is also not nice to spread such words about the saying of Saint Seraphim. He was speaking because of his love for people and because of his relationship with God.


Christianity is not a religion which simply reflects an Eastern ascetic. We are not all born to behave like practical, ascetic Russians. Some Christians are Africans, Chinese, Latin American, Irish, Italian, and so forth, they may live joyfully and wave their arms with expressiveness in the burning heat - far from the winter colds of Russia - and they're all called to be saints.

And what is all this? I did not say the opposite. When mentioning what St. Seraphim did, I did not have in mind all these what you say. It was simply to show that he did not have the time to have a "sinful life". Yes he was a sinner, but "sinful life" is usually used for promiscuous people, murderers, thieves etc. There are saints who had led such extreme lives before and afterwards repented and reached Heaven. But St. Seraphim is not one of them.


That St Seraphim spent twenty years in the Russian cold is a matter of legend. I've read of Indian fakirs who do such feats of apparently crazed endurance. What about Catholic saints? I can quote you examples there, also. We even have orders which are based around mans ability to isolate himself from community and spend his life in prayer.

If it is a matter of legend for you, it is not for me. And I believe it with all my heart. The Church never lies. But of course you are free to believe whatever you wish.

Again you miss the point. I did not say all what I say to compare him with anyone - that is why I mention that he and Therese are not comparable. I wrote my post to emphasize that St. Seraphim was not a man of "sinful life" and because this is not an appropriate term in this case, while it might be true in other cases.

But for the fakirs and the people of great endurance you mention, there is a story.... The devil appeared to an Orthodox Saint and told him 'what do you think you do more than I? You fast? I never eat. You endure the scorching sun or the cold? I never clothe myself and have a home.' And so on. 'But you have something that I do not.' 'And what is that?' -asked the Saint. 'Humility. It burns me!' - said the devil and vanished.


I often read Orthodox lietrature and I'm saddened by the narrow mindedness of their approach to Catholic spirituality.

See, if you say "sinful life" and "narrow mindedness" in a serious conversation, although you are saddened, people will not empathize with you. They will either ignore and dismiss you, or will react. Because you accuse by these words, and you say you are not accusing.



The style is different to the east, but if we look prejudicially at either, we may certainly draw the wrong conclusions about both.

When people say east-west for our times, I find it funny. One can characterize what happened in the past as such, but not in our extremely mobile societies when Bari-Corfu is a 5 minute flight. And when one is in Barcelona, Vatican is east.

[Kieran P.]

Hi Nina,

Unfortunately, I had a long and very erudite and witty response ready for you...and through the vagaries of electronics I lost the lot when I went to preview it! Talk about "doh!"

In summary, however, I don't think that we can read through this thread about the writings of St John of the Cross and reach any other conclusion than the one which suggests that an unfair comparison has been made between St Seraphim of Sarov and the young saint from France, St Therese.

I understood you perfectly when you mentioned St Seraphim hadn't lived a "sinful life", I was merely twisting your words to show how easy it is. I hope you'll forgive me this indulgence, but I also did the same thing when I took St Seraphim's promise to assist us from beyond the grave.

This was done in order to show how I felt about the approach being taken towards the Little Flower. She didn't live a "sinful life", either, and has been proven to be sanctified by the Catholic Church.

I like the way you say - "the Church never lies." I agree with you here, so it's disheartening to see attacks made on her holy saints.

For the record, I happen to agree with St Seraphim, who I hold in highest regard. Padre Pio made a similar claim before his holy death in 1967. Padre Pio was a giant of a saint, a man who helped to make up for what is lacking in Christ's suffering (Col 1:24) and was living testimony to Our lord's words:

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father" (John 14:12)

We should rejoice in the sanctity of saints and the workings of grace. I was disappointed in this thread and I usually am disappointed when I read Orthodox books to see how they go out of their way to "chastise" our saints. Unfortunatley, this is commonplace, and I usually compare it to the actions of a younger brother.

Please God you won't have taken offence, and may God bless you in your faith. Thanks again for your reply!

[Effie Ganatsios]

Rick wrote : "But, here, I have not read the original by Scupoli (don't speak Italian), and I have not read any translations, so I don't know for myself how much our study paralleled Scupoli's work."

Rick, there is a translation of Scupoli's work on the internet somewhere.
I had it on my old computer and printed it out. I haven't been able to find it but it's out there somewhere.

Effie

[Rick H.]

Rick wrote :

Rick, there is a translation of Scupoli's work on the internet somewhere.
I had it on my old computer and printed it out. I haven't been able to find it but it's out there somewhere.

Effie


That's great Effie. Even though I do not have the "Gift of Google," I will see if I can locate it. Thanks very much!

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

Hi Nina,
Unfortunately, I had a long and very erudite and witty response ready for you...and through the vagaries of electronics I lost the lot when I went to preview it! Talk about "doh!"

Sorry that you lost your very erudite and witty response to me, but it might be Providential, since if it is erudite and witty I will not be able to understand it.


I understood you perfectly when you mentioned St Seraphim hadn't lived a "sinful life", I was merely twisting your words to show how easy it is. I hope you'll forgive me this indulgence, but I also did the same thing when I took St Seraphim's promise to assist us from beyond the grave.Ok. There is nothing to forgive, because you did not do anything bad to me. However I would ask kindly that for the sake of the argument you please do not "twist" words be those of Saint Seraphim, or someone else's. Because it might mislead and confuse (I am not saying that that is your intention).



This was done in order to show how I felt about the approach being taken towards the Little Flower. She didn't live a "sinful life", either, and has been proven to be sanctified by the Catholic Church.I like the way you say - "the Church never lies." I agree with you here, so it's disheartening to see attacks made on her holy saints.Here there is some kind of "twisting" again because what might mean church for you, it does not for me. And I was considerate enough not to say that 'my Church never lies' (which was the first version of that sentence, but then I changed it out of consideration for you).

And I did not see any attacks made on your church's saints by the Orthodox here. The things presented here are not invented by the Orthodox here, but are common knowledge and are depicted in many works of people of your own religion also from the times of 'The Decameron' of Boccaccio, to the movie of our time 'L'ora di religione (Il sorriso di mia madre)' - 'The religion hour' (My mother's smile). The criticism and the problem many catholic people have with their church is proclaimed and depicted in many works and the examples are endless. This is not to put you down (I appreciate your sincere faith and love for your religion) but to tell you that before having problems with the Orthodox, who write such things maybe you should look more close to home.


Padre Pio made a similar claim before his holy death in 1967. Padre Pio was a giant of a saint, a man who helped to make up for what is lacking in Christ's suffering (Col 1:24) and was living testimony to Our lord's words:I know Padre Pio very well and it is not my place to say anything about him, but I would say that yes I like his face. Other than that maybe I can direct you to read about what the (Catholic) bishop of Como has said, and some others along the way.

But as an Orthodox I might ask you about the "stigmata" phenomenon that never happened before the schism (to any saint). Another question is: does it feel right in your soul to come here and write about and advertise Catholic saints and the primacy of Peter (and that of the pope) and push those things on the Orthodox here, although you know very well we are Christians?


I was disappointed in this thread and I usually am disappointed when I read Orthodox books to see how they go out of their way to "chastise" our saints. Unfortunatley, this is commonplace, and I usually compare it to the actions of a younger brother.You are free to use a demeaning tone here, but it is not nice. Also you can see that there are so many Catholics that have problems with your own saints and reveal many things.

P.S About proselytism: When an Orthodox is an Orthodox proselytism is not a successful tactic (not to mention it is unfair). If the sweet, elderly ladies in southern Italy - who gave maaaany photos of Padre Pio to me and did not stop from telling me always about him and from pinching my cheeks and cooking orecchiette, delicious artichoke pies and other super delicious food from the area and who were very dear to me as wonderful people they were - could not convince me to believe in the sanctity of Padre Pio (although I think he was a very good man) do you think you will be successful?

[Kieran P.]

Hi Nina,


could not convince me to believe in the sanctity of Padre Pio (although I think he was a very good man) do you think you will be successful?

The Church has declared him to be a saint and his sanctity is beyond dispute, but it's interesting that you feel that for me to mention the great saints of the Catholic Church is an effort to proselytise, when all I was doing was sharing.

The little Italian ladies, now, well, that's another matter! To be fair to them, they'd only have done it because of the magnitude of the man. I know this from personal experience, for it's through his intercession that I was called back to faith, wretched sinner though I still unfortunately am. :(


as an Orthodox I might ask you about the "stigmata" phenomenon that never happened before the schism (to any saint)

We could easily say that it's God's way of sanctifying the great saints of His Church, ref Col 1:24. Perhaps a difference of approach in our Churches is that we believe that the implications of the Incarnation and Resurrection are still being felt, and God moves still with many graces through His Church to bring the Doubting Thomases to believe what Christ has done for us.


you should look more close to home

No, I have no problem with my Church. The Church has always had critics, even from within, who'd wish to steer her off course. That's no matter to me. And I have no problem with the Orthodox Church, either.

I understand that what we both mean by the word "Church" maybe different, but there is only one Church and I was glad that when the Pope made his clarification recently, he showed great respect for the Eastern tradition.

My point all along has been that when Orthodox write about Catholics, it usually is from a prejudicial position and based upon false criteria. I've seen it so many times, in Orthodox literature, that they wheel out the great Catholic saints for correction and then re-assert the primacy of the Orthodox Church. They do this when it's not even necessary, as I've seen in Lossky's Mystical Theology, which I couldn't finish, unfortunately.

I've called this the Little Brother Syndrome. Catholics wouldn't feel the need to do such a thing regarding Orthodox literature or saints.

Better stuff has always come from Kallistos Ware, and even Nicolai Berdaev, who realise that these two bodies complement each other and should work harder at understanding each other. I gave Kallistos Ware's History of the Orthodox Church to a nun I know, it was such an efficacious read, and his tackling of the thorny issues was done with great patience and clarity, so much so that he found much common ground through detailed expositions.

It's put me off reading Orthodox books, since now I don't trust them, unless they're beautiful teachings on the spiritual life, by saints such as Seraphim, or others in the Little Russian Philokalia series, which I've enjoyed.

Unfortunately, this thread - which started off being about St John of the Cross - has slightly become derailed by our clarifying points. That's no matter.

I hope you don't feel that I'm here proselytising - it seems that you think this - but nothing is further from my mind. You have defended St Seraphim quite well (though you had no need) so you would understand how I would feel to see our Catholic saints misrepresented once again.

God bless and keep well...

[Nina]

The Church has declared him to be a saint and his sanctity is beyond dispute, but it's interesting that you feel that for me to mention the great saints of the Catholic Church is an effort to proselytise, when all I was doing was sharing.

The Church did not declare him as a saint, so I do not see your point.

And yes "the sharing", it is an effort to proselytize, since I as an Orthodox would never imagine to go to a Catholic forum and start sharing about Orthodox Saints. And the primacy of Peter and pope thread where you participated and defended the primacy of the pope so fervently? Do not you call that attempt to proselytism?



My point all along has been that when Orthodox write about Catholics, it usually is from a prejudicial position and based upon false criteria. I've seen it so many times, in Orthodox literature, that they wheel out the great Catholic saints for correction and then re-assert the primacy of the Orthodox Church. They do this when it's not even necessary, as I've seen in Lossky's Mystical Theology, which I couldn't finish, unfortunately.

Do not read them if you have problem. But also do not come and vent out on us here because of problems you have with the work of theologians.


I've called this the Little Brother Syndrome. Catholics wouldn't feel the need to do such a thing regarding Orthodox literature or saints.

Oh and who is here criticizing the Orthodox?

We are not little brother, so please be a Christian you say you are and be considerate and do not use that please.



so you would understand how I would feel to see our Catholic saints misrepresented once again.

We are free in an Orthodox forum to promote Orthodoxy, its saints and our belief. So please let us peaceful in our own struggle.

[Kieran P.]

Hi Nina,


The Church did not declare him as a saint

The Church declared him a saint in 2002, though his life was one of such holiness and humility that he was almost known to be a saint during his lifetime.

If I defend the Church against attack, how is this proselytising? Is this a forum where a point may be raised, but not queried? So if I query a point here, is that a bad thing?

It seems that it might be, but in Christian charity are we not allowed to express an alternative viewpoint?

I haven't said anything negative about the Orthodox Church, I've kept my negative views to myself. My only posts have either been queries or else I've tried to clarify erroneous positions.


And yes "the sharing", it is an effort to proselytize, since I as an Orthodox would never imagine to go to a Catholic forum and start sharing about Orthodox Saints.

The funny thing here is that if you scroll back through the posts, you'll see that I only introduced Padre Pio into the topic to agree with you because he'd said something similar to St Seraphim! Funny that you felt threatened by this, but it wasn't my intention. I was being nice! :)


But also do not come and vent out on us here because of problems you have with the work of theologians.

I have no problem with the theologians, per se, I simply find their approach to Catholicism to be both narrow and stifling. If you scroll back you'll see that this was my complaint against peoples treatment of Catholic saints in general, in this forum. I only wish to serve, to help you understand, perhaps, but through sharing, not through proselytising.

I have too much respect for this forum for that.

God bless, and keep well...

[Nina]

Hi Nina,

The Church declared him a saint in 2002, though his life was one of such holiness and humility that he was almost known to be a saint during his lifetime.

If I defend the Church against attack, how is this proselytising? Is this a forum where a point may be raised, but not queried? So if I query a point here, is that a bad thing?

It seems that it might be, but in Christian charity are we not allowed to express an alternative viewpoint?

I haven't said anything negative about the Orthodox Church, I've kept my negative views to myself. My only posts have either been queries or else I've tried to clarify erroneous positions.

You are playing with and twisting many words here but it is fine. Thank you.



The funny thing here is that if you scroll back through the posts, you'll see that I only introduced Padre Pio into the topic to agree with you because he'd said something similar to St Seraphim! Funny that you felt threatened by this, but it wasn't my intention. I was being nice! :)Threatened? I? You are talking to the wrong person. However St. Seraphim is not comparable (as are not other Orthodox Saints) to anyone outside the Church. And yes I am familiar with subtle and sweet and seemingly innocent introductions into a topic.



I have no problem with the theologians, per se, I simply find their approach to Catholicism to be both narrow and stifling.It is ok. you can just dismiss them and any thing that makes you feel that way. We are not coming to where you are and your forums and telling you to read or know about them.


If you scroll back you'll see that this was my complaint against peoples treatment of Catholic saints in general, in this forum. I only wish to serve, to help you understand, perhaps, but through sharing, not through proselytising.Yes, like in the thread where you helped us understand the primacy of the pope. Thank you, but no thank you.

[Kieran P.]

Yikes, Nina, :)


St. Seraphim is not comparable (as are not other Orthodox Saints) to anyone outside the Church.

Even where there is no attempt to compare (which would be crass) you still have to bring the word "comparable" into the topic.

Anyone who's sanctified according to their measure of faith is not comparable to those who aren't. It's your misfortune that you disbelieve the sanctity of those who aren't members of the Orthodox Church. Personally, I have no problem with you holding that view, but it opens up many an interesting scenario, which is best left for another topic.

I wouldn't want to be accused of proselytising, after all. ;-)


We are not coming to where you are and your forums and telling you to read or know about them.

Don't forget, Nina, that this is also my forum. I'm a member here and can post validly within the rules. If I've posted anything which is against the rules, you may report me, but otherwise you're under no obligation to engage with me if you dislike my view or hold the views of Catholics to be so distasteful or threatening.

You see, forums like this are unique in history as a way of sharing views and hearing what the other has to say. It would be a pity to try to stop this - the Church will never be One if we turn a deaf ear to what the other has to say. It's the only way we'll get to learn the inside truth on "the Church" - both Catholic and Orthodox.

God bless and keep well...

[Nina]

It's your misfortune that you disbelieve the sanctity of those who aren't members of the Orthodox Church.

I wanted before to say the same for you and Lossky's work and the theologians you have problems with, but I was trying to be a good Christian.



Don't forget, Nina, that this is also my forum. I'm a member here and can post validly within the rules.You are welcomed here but the thread about the primacy of the pope was kind of closed because of the breaching of the rules. If people are charitable and patient with you (and there are many here), I hope you understand that you should not take advantage of it, at least because you say you are Catholic (and the Catholics that I know are not like that).



You see, forums like this are unique in history as a way of sharing views and hearing what the other has to say. It would be a pity to try to stop this - the Church will never be One if we turn a deaf ear to what the other has to say. It's the only way we'll get to learn the inside truth on "the Church" - both Catholic and Orthodox.It is interesting that you coin the little brother syndrome about the Orthodox and come here in this forum and say such things. Are you the big brother trying to teach the little brother? Who said that the Church is not One? And if you would like to not turn a deaf ear to what the other has to say listen. Start with Saint Mark Eugenikos and so on.

[Kieran P.]

Hi Nina,

I've enjoyed following your train of thought here and admired your approach.

However, far as I know, the thread on the primacy of St Peter was closed because "no one seems able to post in this area in accordance with the guidelines of the forum" - so it's unfair to say that this was closed because Catholics were breaching the rules while others were being "charitable and patient" with us!

In fact, I found the ending of that thread to be slightly premature, since a post was introduced at the end to which I had no chance to reply, but since we were all in breach of the rules, I suppose it was going to have been ended anyway, eh?

By the way, it isn't my intention to take advantage of anyone here - as you put it - and I must also say that my Christian charity has been tested too, but I hope that no-one has taken offense.

Nor is it my intention to "teach", since that would be beyond me. I merely wish to share with Christian charity and friendship.


Start with Saint Mark Eugenikos

I've heard of him - I prefer St Seraphim. But thanks for the pointer! ;-)

God bless - and good night!

[Father David Moser]

The Church declared him a saint in 2002,
...
I haven't said anything negative about the Orthodox Church,

In the context of this forum "the Church" is the Orthodox Church and therefore to say that "the Church" canonized a Roman Catholic saint is quite ingenuous and deceptive (or careless). By implying that the Orthodox Church is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church you have indeed denied one of the basic tenants of the Orthodox faith - it may not be insulting, but it is certainly "negative".

Now I think that it might be helpful to refresh our definition of "the Church" from the Terms of Use (http://www.monachos.net/forum/faq.php?faq=mb_tos):

the Orthodox Church of the seven ecumenical councils, sometimes known as Chalcedonian Orthodoxy: that is, the term ‘Orthodoxy’ on this site refers to the Church of the seven ecumenical councils, which include Chalcedon, as found in the ancient patriarchates of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

I think that we should stick to the definitions on this forum. So if you wish to clarify that the Roman Catholic Church did something - please be specific, since in this forum "the Church" means "the Orthodox Church".


Fr David Moser