Eucharistic union on the last day

[RichardWorthington]

In the thread "Women and Leadership" (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=54866/lpost54866), we got into a discussion of human nature, and how its unity reflects God's unity, and on how this unity might affect our ideas on gender roles. (Is this a fair reflection?) However, I could see that thread being bogged down, so I decided to move to here a discussion on our unity on the Last Day. The main point I had on my mind was that, while we and the Persons of the Trinity are distinct, due to the Fall there are now further divisions in humanity. Yet to see humanity properly we need to see beyond these divisions.

For example, when St Paul speaks of one Body (Ephesians 4:4), it is true that "there is ‘one body’; one, both by sympathy, and by not opposing the good of others, and by sharing their joy, having expressed all at once by this figure" . (St John Chrysostom, Homily XI on Ephesians 4:4-7 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.xii.html)) In other words, we are only symbolically one because our bodies are still separated by time and space.

However, I think our true unity can be seen in these other words of St John Chrysostom:


Ver. 17. "For we, who are many, are one bread, one body." "For why speak I of communion?" saith he, "we are that self-same body." For what is the bread? The Body of Christ. And what do they become who partake of it? The Body of Christ: not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that the grains no where appear; they exist indeed, but their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunction [joining together]; so are we conjoined [joined together] both with each other and with Christ: there not being one body for thee, and another for thy neighbor to be nourished by, but the very same for all. Wherefore also he adds, "For we all partake of the one bread." Now if we are all nourished of the same and all become the same, why do we not also show forth the same love, and become also in this respect one? (Homily XXIV on 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxv.html))
(Conjoin (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjoin)="to join together; unite; combine; associate")

This is my interpretation:

Here we all take Holy Communion, and our divisions remain. But after the Final Resurrection on the Last Day, even though ‘Peter’ shall remain ‘Peter’ and ‘Paul’ shall remain ‘Paul’, shall we not be fully united? ‘We shall exist indeed, but our difference will not be seen by reason of our conjunction’. As you read this, please hold up and look at your hand. One day, my fellow human being, my hand shall be physically within your hand, and your hand shall be within mine, and there shall be but one hand: the hand of Christ.

My whole self will be within yourself, and your whole self will be within myself: our ‘self’ will become Christ – both "I and Thou" and "I and I" together. Our feelings, emotions and thoughts, all of which are very personal to us (to the point of acute pain and agony should they sometimes be uncovered), shall be healed. Our thoughts and feelings shall become one: my thoughts shall be your thoughts, and your feelings shall be my feelings, and no longer shall we have our "tunics of skin" to hide from God and from each other; we shall be both naked and transparent (Genesis 3:21,8,7), the one being seen in the other. We shall not ‘surrender our identities’, but unhide and open ourselves up as divine love leads us to divine union.

What else can partaking of the one Body of Christ imply on the Last Day?

Richard

[Tim Grass]

I don't think so.........

[Nicolaj]

me neither...

[Mary]

What else can partaking of the one Body of Christ imply on the Last Day?

Richard

YIKES! All your thoughts are totally new to me, Richard!!!

Perhaps we need to approach it from a different angle. You seem to see our physical bodies as a thing that divides us. But everything that God created was/is good, and He did create Adam and Eve with real, physical, bodies. Would you say, that before the fall, they were One, even as the three persons of the Trinity are One? Or do you think they couldn't have been one, because God put them in two bodies? Why would God tell them to be One and then make it impossible for them to be one by putting them in bodies?


For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. Gen 2:24-25

I don't think that 'becoming one flesh', in any way means they'll be fused to each other! I think it's the 'shame factor' that's a clue. They felt no shame, they had nothing to hide. But when they sinned, they had to hide, they felt shame, and so they weren't one anymore. Not with each other, and not with God.

It's not our bodies that separate us. I still maintain, it's our sins that separate us.


Here we all take Holy Communion, and our divisions remain.

I do not agree with this statement. When we all take Holy Communion, our divisions are being erroded. I've been in parishes where I didn't know anyone, and couldn't speak with most of them, and yet, I felt like I'd known them all my life. Just because we communed together. This is unique to Orthodoxy. I've been in many protestant churches too, and unless I knew the people in the congregation, I felt no oneness with them, whether we had 'communion' or not. And many times, even if I knew the people, I felt no oneness with them.

I think, we're only divided to the extent that we want to remain divided. When we humbly ask each other for forgiveness, and forgive each other, we are becoming one, and our divisions start to disappear. I don't have to have the same thoughts as you, or the same feelings and emotions, etc. I don't even have to completely understand why you feel the way you do or think the way you do. After all, I can't fully understand even myself, and yet, I'm just one person.

And also, I'm not so sure about this 'Last Day' thing... sure, everything will come to completion and perfection then, but God also says that the Kingdom of God is here. If so, it is possible to live with each, as one, as if the Last Day is already here.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Richard Worthington wrote:



This is my interpretation:

Here we all take Holy Communion, and our divisions remain. But after the Final Resurrection on the Last Day, even though ‘Peter’ shall remain ‘Peter’ and ‘Paul’ shall remain ‘Paul’, shall we not be fully united? ‘We shall exist indeed, but our difference will not be seen by reason of our conjunction’. As you read this, please hold up and look at your hand. One day, my fellow human being, my hand shall be physically within your hand, and your hand shall be within mine, and there shall be but one hand: the hand of Christ.

My whole self will be within yourself, and your whole self will be within myself: our ‘self’ will become Christ – both "I and Thou" and "I and I" together. Our feelings, emotions and thoughts, all of which are very personal to us (to the point of acute pain and agony should they sometimes be uncovered), shall be healed. Our thoughts and feelings shall become one: my thoughts shall be your thoughts, and your feelings shall be my feelings, and no longer shall we have our "tunics of skin" to hide from God and from each other; we shall be both naked and transparent (Genesis 3:21,8,7), the one being seen in the other. We shall not ‘surrender our identities’, but unhide and open ourselves up as divine love leads us to divine union.

What else can partaking of the one Body of Christ imply on the Last Day?

There are some problems here very much along the lines of what Fr Dn Matthew pointed to yesterday in his post on the Holy Trinity.

The distinctions between individual people are not the result of sinful division but rather inherent to the nature of the created order. Indeed these distinctions point to (again repeating Fr Dn Matthew's point of yesterday) the very need of communion which all creation is made for. This is the built in purpose of distinction and not a result of some aspect of the Fall.

Again we come to a very similar point made yesterday which the above point of view on distinction as division would imply if correct. Basically we would have to say that what is at fault here is the original order of creation and how it was created as distinct in nature. In this case though the implication would be that the primal sin is actually that there is anything apart from the One God.

Here we come to an extremely important point about what the Fall and the essence of sin means for the Church. This is summed up in the reference to the coats of skin which in the Fathers (eg St Gregory of Nyssa) does not mean the appearance of distinction. Rather the coats of skin refer to sinful passion as something external laid on top of the true nature as it were. And it is this which then causes creation to fall into division.

This point is extremely important to catch because otherwise those Fathers like St Gregory of Nyssa would have been describing the creation itself as inherently fallen. And this idea they would have fervently rejected not least because of the way in which it would have ascribed sin to the very nature of God's creation.

For the question at hand then- which is very important- the essence of the Fall and sin is not that there is distinction within the creation. The primal 'outrage' is not that there is something distinct from God's perfection perceived as if it cannot include diversity.

Rather the distinction of creation is the trinitarian reflection of what God's perfection actually is. It is the reflection of perfection. And creation is called to lose its coats of skin not in casting aside whatever makes each thing distinct from the other. Rather it is called to cast aside the coats of skin which through sinful passion drag distinction down into division and to find its distinct life in communion with each other and with God.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary]

The distinctions between individual people are not the result of sinful division but rather inherent to the nature of the created order. Indeed these distinctions point to (again repeating Fr Dn Matthew's point of yesterday) the very need of communion which all creation is made for. This is the built in purpose of distinction and not a result of some aspect of the Fall.

Fr Raphael,

May I rephrase what you said? This is to beautiful!!

Here's what I understand - the reason we've all been created, is so we can commune - with God, and with each other. But in order to be able to commune, we all need to be different from each other! If that's what you meant, it answers so many of my underlying questions, that I had forgotten about!



Rather the distinction of creation is the trinitarian reflection of what God's perfection actually is. It is the reflection of perfection. And creation is called to lose its coats of skin not in casting aside whatever makes each thing distinct from the other. Rather it is called to cast aside the coats of skin which through sinful passion drag distinction down into division and to find its distinct life in communion with each other and with God.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

So, in relation to the Trinity, they are distinct from each other, but they are in perfect communion, and that's what makes them One? Is that what "The Lord our God is One Lord" means?

In Christ,
Mary

[RichardWorthington]

:) ;) :)

I'll wait until the Europeans have had a chance to put in from their abundance also, before replying with my two mites!

LOL

"In Christ"

Richard

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mary wrote:



So, in relation to the Trinity, they are distinct from each other, but they are in perfect communion, and that's what makes them One? Is that what "The Lord our God is One Lord" means?

About the Holy Trinity I think this really describes it beautifully...better than I had it in my own mind.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS; Posts from the Forum have begun coming to my email inbox again! Alleluia!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard, Fr Raphael, Mary, Nicolaj and others,

The initial post in this thread brings up similar questions and issues - as Fr Raphael has noted (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=54904&postcount=5) - that were at stake in the recent discussion in the thread of which this is an off-shoot (that being Church structure > Women and leadership (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2542)). I am glad they have been extracted here, so that they can be focused upon more directly.

Defining the problem: unity and singularity.

There is a basic problem with the conception of unity here, as there, grounded in a failure to see unity as fundamentally informed by the Trinity.

Part of the great challenge that Christianity has always faced, from the very first, has been the constant tendency to read 'unity' through the lens of religious or philosophical systems that see unity as fundamentally related to monad. Unity is understood as related to singularity. Whether this be set in a religious context (such as first-century Judaism, which the fathers of that century identify as a radically monistic religion) through the confession that 'God is one', or whether it be set in a philosophical context (such as either a refined Platonism or Aristotelianism) through a logical appeal to 'first principles', the issue is seeing unity as related to singularity.

The very reason that the project of articulating Trinity takes such time and nuance in Christian history, is because so much of the 'conceptual framework' of the age (ancient as well as modern) is thoroughly infused with language and images built on this identification of unity with unity. Only the monad is truly one. Multiplicity is always disunion, even if it can be harmonised. This was fundamentally why the Jews with whom Justin the Philosopher (2d century AD) dialogued could not conceive of Jesus as Messiah and divine Logos: there could be no way to see 'union' or 'unity' between God (the Father) and a Son, since that multiplicity would always equate to a disunion, meaning multiplication - something their law would not allow.

Developing a trinitarian understanding of unity.

The project of the early Church was not somehow to declare that God was truly one yet truly Father, Son and Spirit - this was the Christian confession from the very first. The project was how to articulate this, given that essentially every version of a concept for 'unity' -- in language / vocabulary as well as in 'metaphysics' -- worked against it. Even the word unity bears within it 'one': unity means 'one-ness'.

The Christian term, which developed later its testimony (in currency widely from the third century onwards) was trinity, which, as I am fond of pointing out, is a nonsense word. It means 'three-one-ity' (and there is a real debt to Latin theological vocabulary in it: the much older [pre-Christian] Greek trias, meaning 'triad', is not quite the same, though in Christian theological writings is meant to indicate the same thing). Trinitas is the Christian response to unity: it resides not in singularity, but in the communion of the three-as-one. The three persons of Father, Son and Spirit are not one because they are in such harmony that their threeness somehow equates to oneness. This would be, again, to see unity as always bound to singularity. Rather, their oneness exists as and in their threeness. The three persons are the irreducably triunity of God.

This trinitarian articulation is key, because it frames in the whole Christian concept of unity and communion. Trinity is not a secondary aspect of God's being: it is who he is as God: his one-ness bound up entirely in his three-ness, so that even these '-ness'es are held together as 'Trinity'. What this means, for the Christian, is that all conceptions of multiplicity and unity within the cosmos, which is the creation of this God, must be framed within this revelation of God's trinitarian nature. Unless God created the world - and humanity in particular - against his own nature (an idea specifically refuted in the confession that he creates it, rather, in his own image), then it is inappropriate to hold creation to a different conception of these things than God has revealed about himself.

In a Christian understanding, 'unity' is a concept that must always be 'read' through the testimony of God's own nature. When we speak of 'union' or 'communion' in this cosmos, or in the Kingdom, it must be in concert with the One God as tri-unity. That is the 'image' that must define the meaning of the terms in all other contexts that wish to call themselves Christian.

Trinity and human relationships.

When we speak of human relationships, the question of human 'unity' has to be read in this trinitarian way. More yet than all else in creation, humanity images God - meaning not only that God's nature defines, in a sense, the nature of man; but also that in humanity we see God's being in image. To declare that 'unity' or 'union' in human relationships must equate to some enforcing of singularity (of monad), however defined, is to abuse one's own definition of God as Trinity - the one imaged in the person.

It would be helpful in demonstrating what this means, if I were to comment on a specific remark:


Here we all take Holy Communion, and our divisions remain. But after the Final Resurrection on the Last Day, even though ‘Peter’ shall remain ‘Peter’ and ‘Paul’ shall remain ‘Paul’, shall we not be fully united? ‘We shall exist indeed, but our difference will not be seen by reason of our conjunction’. As you read this, please hold up and look at your hand. One day, my fellow human being, my hand shall be physically within your hand, and your hand shall be within mine, and there shall be but one hand: the hand of Christ.


In this remark, you have caught the idea of ongoing personal reality ("‘Peter’ shall remain ‘Peter’ and ‘Paul’ shall remain ‘Paul’"); but a monadic understanding of unity effectively cheats this of any real meaning. The phrasing:
Even though ‘Peter’ shall remain ‘Peter’ and ‘Paul’ shall remain ‘Paul’,


shall we not be fully united?
This is an improper dichotomy. It implies that union is somehow at odds with this personal distinction. In other words, the multiplicity of 'Peter' and 'Paul' requires some manner of being overcome for the two to be 'fully united'.


This is to set unity back into the context of singularity - which is a perfectly reasonably metaphysical idea. It is simply not trinitarian. And when one attempts to be both trinintarian (which Christianity has to be, knowing God as Trinity), yet still keep to this metaphysical understanding of 'unity', it poses all sorts of odd problems. For example, again from the above quotation:
"One day, my fellow human being, my hand shall be physically within your hand, and your hand shall be within mine, and there shall be but one hand: the hand of Christ."
The sentiment that drives these words is noble: seeing true unity, and specifically, union in the resurrected Christ. But it is wrong, precisely because once again, unity is understood without trinitarian perspective. It must mean 'one-ity', which here causes all sorts of bizarre problems: hands within hands, etc., etc.

The Christian understanding of tri-unity is perfected, not in the integration of various parts into some single whole, but in the true manifestation of the persons as persons, in the eternal, irrepeatable distinction of their personhood, which is the eternal, unchanging relation of their communion. The Father is one with the Son, not because the Son is / has become quite Father-like, but because the Son is perfect Son. The Spirit, perfect Spirit. An so, perfect Trinity.

Humanity is truly united, not in the forcing upon its members some demanded one-ness; rather, by perfecting the persons of the one race. Peter will always be Peter, Paul will always be Paul; and Peter's hand will always be his, Paul's Paul's, mine mine. The moment Peter's hand is confused with Paul's, or co-identified in this manner, the image of a truly triune God has been destroyed. True unity comes, in the end, rather through the the distinctions of the personal race being wholly drawn up into the eternally-distinct persons of the God they each image. Then one shall live so wholly in communion with his brother that 'I' and 'Thou' no longer break, no longer divide and tear apart, in the way we have caused them to do in this life; but they will always be 'I' an 'Thou'. They will never be 'I' and 'I', and more than Christ might turn to his Father and says 'Not my will, by mine be done'.

This I would consider an essential corrective on what I view as an extremely problematic series of comments, found here:


My whole self will be within yourself, and your whole self will be within myself: our ‘self’ will become Christ – both "I and Thou" and "I and I" together. Our feelings, emotions and thoughts, all of which are very personal to us (to the point of acute pain and agony should they sometimes be uncovered), shall be healed. Our thoughts and feelings shall become one: my thoughts shall be your thoughts, and your feelings shall be my feelings, and no longer shall we have our "tunics of skin" to hide from God and from each other; we shall be both naked and transparent (Genesis 3:21,8,7), the one being seen in the other. We shall not ‘surrender our identities’, but unhide and open ourselves up as divine love leads us to divine union.

Again, I think you are making rather a case-in-point, in as much as I think you do in fact wish to see persistent, unique personhood in the Kingdom, yet a non-trinitarian understanding of union makes this falter. 'I and I' is not a relational concept of a truly trinitarian understanding of God. There is not one shard of evidence for anything of the kind in the revelation of the relating of the Father, Son and Spirit. Again, this is precisely why Christian could not in the past, and cannot now, attempt to understand unity and community in external terms, which are not grounded in the eternally relating life of the Trinity.

The question of thoughts is a good example of this. There shall be no point in which 'my thoughts' and 'your thoughts' are one and the same. The scriptures do not speak of Christ's or the father's 'thoughts' per se; but what is common between them is not thought, but will. Willing is perfected in transfiguration in Christ; but thoughts, which are part of free deliberation, will never be merged into one-ness. This would equate to a fundamental distortion of humanity.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[RichardWorthington]

We're not only physical, we're also spiritual beings. And the oneness of our spirits transcends time and space. (from the Women and Leadership thread)

My dear brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers in Christ - 'friends' if you please, :)

Why do you treat our physical nature as inferior to our spiritual nature? If we talk of oneness of our spirits, then why not of oneness of our bodies, in Christ? Physical nature is indeed fallen, but that is why we should show love all the more to her! We should proclaim with our whole life the union with Christ and His resurrection that will happen at the restoration of all things on the Last Day, and that this will include our physical nature.


You seem to see our physical bodies as a thing that divides us. But everything that God created was/is good, and He did create Adam and Eve with real, physical, bodies. Would you say, that before the fall, they were One, even as the three persons of the Trinity are One? Or do you think they couldn't have been one, because God put them in two bodies? Why would God tell them to be One and then make it impossible for them to be one by putting them in bodies?

Our physical bodies are good, even now after the Fall (after all, the 'garments of skin' which now clothe us were taken from the animals, which themselves were created as good. Perhaps it is a change from the 'very good' which God said to us after we were created, to only the 'good' said after the animals were made, Genesis 1:31 vs 1:25). Clearly, before the Fall Adam and Eve were not one in the same way that the three Persons are one, for one body existed in one place and the other body in another place, but the Trinity is undivided even though divided in Persons. "Why would God tell them to be One and then make it impossible for them to be one by putting them in bodies?" - "Take, eat, this is My Body …" (!)


Adam and Eve … were created in union with God that need never be broken. This union, however, was one that would grow and develop over time, such that at the end Adam and Eve (and thus all humankind) would have a deeper, stronger, more fulfilled relationship to God then ever they had in Eden. (from another thread, on Original sin)

As it happens, instead of going towards union with God, we went in the other direction. And so instead of having a union which would "grow and develop over time" leading to a "deeper, stronger, more fulfilled relationship to God then ever they had in Eden", we now have a disunion which is growing ever further apart leading to a distancing of ourselves from God and each other. All I am trying to do is to point out what the growing and development of the original union would be like.


Rather the distinction of creation is the trinitarian reflection of what God's perfection actually is. It is the reflection of perfection. And creation is called to lose its coats of skin not in casting aside whatever makes each thing distinct from the other. Rather it is called to cast aside the coats of skin which through sinful passion drag distinction down into division and to find its distinct life in communion with each other and with God.

So the growth and development of the original union first of all must be freeing ourselves from the 'garments of skin', which happens through Christ, removing the fallen divisions but still retaining the original distinctions. Once this has happened, fully on the Last Day, then the growth and development towards God can continue apace! But as God is one, will we be destroyed in this union?


Trinitas is the Christian response to unity: it resides not in singularity, but in the communion of the three-as-one. The three persons of Father, Son and Spirit are not one because they are in such harmony that their threeness somehow equates to oneness. This would be, again, to see unity as always bound to singularity. Rather, their oneness exists as and in their threeness. The three persons are the irreducably triunity of God.

But God is Trinity, not Monad; Trinity, not Triad. I denounce both monotheism and tritheism; I am Trinitarian! And what is the Trinity's union and distinction? "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9; referring to the divine Light that shines from Him). Each Person is seen in the other, and fully dwells in the other; each Person is fully God, yet the distinctions of origins (unbegotten, begotten, proceeding) remain. So as the three Persons are not destroyed by their union, neither shall we be!


When we speak of human relationships, the question of human 'unity' has to be read in this trinitarian way. More yet than all else in creation, humanity images God - meaning not only that God's nature defines, in a sense, the nature of man; but also that in humanity we see God's being in image.

And what is the true "growth and development" towards God? In the Eucharist (http://www.sourozh.org/web/The_Divine_Liturgy%2C_Page_2#comm), the Holy Bread becomes the Holy Body, and is One Body. The Bread is then cut up, but without division - how great is the wonder that though we see separation, yet there is still one Body and one Bread: "Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God, who being broken is not divided, being eaten is never consumed, but sanctifies those who partake thereof"! Each piece of Bread which we see is, and remains, the fullness of the Body of Christ.

In like manner on the Last Day (i.e. after the resurrection of our bodies), each one of us will have the fullness of Christ within us, yet there shall not be many bodies of Christ, but only one. Yet as the Bread here is seen to be separated, so too there our distinctions shall remain. However, as each piece of bread is the whole Body of Christ, so we shall be but one true Body of Christ. And as in the Trinity, each human person will be seen in the other, and will fully dwell in the other, in Christ! Each human person will be fully the whole of humanity, being now also the whole Body of Christ. Yet our distinctions shall remain (e.g. I shall always be the third child of my parents, as the Son is begotten of His Father); we shall not be destroyed but transfigured into the divine eternal life, and "this life is in His Son" (1 John 5:11).

Are we so addicted to our fallen nature that we do not wish to glance at our true union with God? Which is the greater mystery, that the Bread is cut into pieces, or that the pieces remain the one Body?


And also, I'm not so sure about this 'Last Day' thing... sure, everything will come to completion and perfection then, but God also says that the Kingdom of God is here. If so, it is possible to live with each, as one, as if the Last Day is already here.

The Kingdom of God is indeed here in reality, and as a foretaste (the general resurrection on the Last Day has not happened yet!). Perhaps if we could agree on what the Eucharist is (e.g. transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc.) then it would help: see my post elsewhere 'Trains-in-sub-standard-stations' (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=54920#post54920).

I have not answered every point, but I hope this gives the gist!
Thank you for replying; I was awestruck by the response - hence my jovial little post earlier, sorry!

In Christ, praying that we all may grow and develop to be fuller members of His flesh and of His bones by His loving grace,

Richard :)

PS this seems rather long for only two mites - oh well! That's inflation for you!!

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

After reading the above posts, I just have to reproduce a post by Maria Mahoney here because it really fills a huge void in the conversation in my humble opinion.

I think it is natural for most of us here to think and know in a very dualistic way, in some cases this is all we have ever known and all we will ever know, barring divine intervention. However, as it relates to our way of knowing and our way of being, as quoted below by Nikitas Stithatos, we must, "Exalt the One over the dyad - the single over the dual - and free its nobility from all commerce with dualism, and you will consort immaterially with immaterial spirits."

As we consider this topic and others we can talk about it and hold it up to the light and turn it around and look at it different ways, but at the end of the day what do we have that we didn't have at the beginning of the day? And, we can speak in 'I and Thou' language or as above in the Nikitas Stithatos quote, these are both very good, but I think I am *simply* suggesting here that past a certain point with such discussions words are useless which is why I think I am still so mesmerized by the following collection of quotes and commentary. It is hard to not have such conversations degenerate into vain displays past a certain point, but I wonder who can hear what Maria is sharing below in tandem with the others from the Treasury? I have probably read this following post over one hundred times since she has made it. To me this one stands head and shoulders above every post I have ever read here on monachos as it relates to knowing and being for those of us who stand between the two worlds.

In Christ,
Rick

PS The bold face emphasis below is mine--hopefully the reader can at least skim these on the way down.



Oneness and the Cosmic Liturgy

Spirit-filled Orthodox Christians are the priests of the Cosmic Liturgy. As said before in previous posts - We have to live holy/consecrated lives....Lives set totally apart to God. Lives filled with good works for the sake of Christ. We have to ASK. We have to be silent and listen. And we know that the Holy Spirit will not abide with those who love evil.

What does Christ's Priesthood have to do with us and the discussion of divine essences? The Church is the Body of Christ, and as such, we also have a share in His Priesthood through our Chrismation and ascetic purification...

Part of our work as priests consists in the contemplation of divine essences ... bringing material creation to noetic reality ... and returning the noetic reality to the material creation....

When the Holy Spirit dwells in our souls, when we put on the wedding garment of the Holy Spirit, the eyes of our hearts are opened and we perceive the Divine reality in which we live and move and have our being.

So as it was said before ... the kingdom of God is already here... Clothed in the wedding garment of the Holy Spirit we see Christ on Mt. Tabor in His Glory; we understand the preaching of the Apostles, each in our own language; and suddenly, we behold the Kingdom of Heaven!

Mankind stands between two worlds - the Spiritual and the Material Creation. Our work in creation is to transform the universe in Christ. We are creatures of Prayer and Contemplation. In prayer, we co-operate with God being transformed through Theosis, into the mystical Body of Christ, then our inner being offers glory to God, being joined to the mystical sacrifice of Christ. In Contemplation, we co-operate with God in transforming the universe - we raise creation up to God in contemplating the inner being, (the essence, finding the fingerprint of God and receiving enlightenment), of God's creation. God reveals Himself to us, and we raise creation up to God by receiving His revelation.We elevate creation to a higher plane of existence, making it nobler, sanctifying it as a holy vessel of God;It becomes a bearer of light.

The reverse would be to use it for self-gratification, evil, and sinful purposes. The elevated, nobler, sanctified creation then glorifies the Creator and offers its' inner, essential glory to God. Then we stand unified in the Body of Christ, offering glory to God, as a new creation in Christ, as God reveals Himself to us, from one glory to another ... eternally.

St. Maximos the Confessor said:





"The Logos has made men equal to the angels. Not only did He 'make peace through the blood of His Cross... between things on earth and things in heaven' (Col. 1:20), and reduce to impotence the hostile powers that fill the intermediary region between heaven and earth, thereby making the festal assembly of earthly and heavenly powers a single gathering for His distribution of divine gifts, with humankind joining joyfully with the powers on high in unanimous praise of God's glory; but also, after fulfilling the divine purpose undertaken on our behalf, when He was taken up with the body which He had assumed, He united heaven and earth in Himself, joined what is sensible with what is intelligible, and revealed creation as a single whole whose extremes are bound together through virtue and through knowledge of their first Cause. He shows, I think, through what He has accomplished mystically, that the Logos unites what is separated and that alienation from the Logos divides what is united. Let us learn, then, to strive after the Logos through the practice of the virtues, so that we may be united not only with the angels through virtue, but also with God in spiritual knowledge through detachment from created things." On the Lord's Prayer; P.P. 287 - 288; St. Maximos the Confessor; Philokalia Volume 2.



So we join with the angels & all of creation glorifying God. It is our great privelege and work to raise creation and bring it to unity in God.

Nikitas Stithatos said:





"48. Once you have united yourself through the higher Wisdom with the angelic powers and have thereby been united with God, through love of Wisdom you enter into communion with all men, since you have achieved God's likeness. Through divine power you sever those so disposed from their attachment to what is external and multiple, and as an imitator of God you concentrate them in spirit, elevating them as you are elevated to a unified life through wisdom, spiritual knowledge and the illumination of divine mysteries, until they come to contemplate the glory of the unique primordial light. When you have united them with the essences and orders that surround God, you induct them - wholly irradiated by the Spirit - to the unity of God Himself." On Spiritual Knowledge; Page 153; Nikitas Stithatos; Philokalia Volume 4.







"14. Exalt the One over the dyad - the single over the dual - and free its nobility from all commerce with dualism, and you will consort immaterially with immaterial spirits; for you will yourself have become a noetic spirit, even though you appear to dwell bodily among other men.
15. Once you have brought bondage to the dyad into subjection to the dignity and nature of the One, you will have subjected the whole of creation to God; for you will have brought into unity what was divided and will have reconciled all things.
16. So long as the nature of the powers within us is in a state of inner discord and is dispersed among many contrary things, we do not participate in God's supranatural gifts. And if we do not participate in these gifts, we are also far from the mystical eucharist of the heavenly sanctuary, celebrated by the intellect through its spiritual activity. When through assiduous ascetic labour we have purged ourselves of the crudity of evil and have reconciled our inner discord through the power of the Spirit, we then participate in the ineffable blessings of God, and worthily concelebrate the divine mysteries of the intellect's mystical eucharist with God the Logos in His supracelestial and spiritual sanctuary; for we have become initiates and priests of His immortal mysteries." On Spiritual Knowledge; P.P. 143 - 144; Nikitas Stithatos; Philokalia Volume 4.



So when you are "outside on a clear night at about 3:30 AM, as well as being deep in a woods one morning, surrounded by thick ferns and bright green moss, flowering shrubs, and a great variety of very large deciduous and conifer trees which give way occasionally to caves and natural bridges", don't look for "the tomato being in the carrot, and the carrot being in the cucumber, and so on as it relates to a compost bin in a vegetable garden."

The oneness to look for is the unity in God:





"100. God is both Monad and Triad; He begins with the Monad and, as Decad, He completes Himself through cyclic movement. Thus He contains within Himself the origins and ends of all things. He is outside everything, since He transcends all things. To be within Him you must embrace the inner essences and possess a spiritual knowledge of created beings. Then while standing outside all things you will dwell within all things and know their origins and ends; for you will have attaind a spiritual union with the Father through the Logos and will have been perfected in the Spirit." On Spiritual Knowledge; P.P. 173 - 174; Nikitas Stithatos; Philokalia Volume 4.



Because as St. Maximos says:





"6. Everything that derives its existence from participation in some other reality, presupposes the ontological priority of that other reality. Thus it is clear that the divine Cause of created beings - is incomparably superior to all such beings in every way, since by nature its existence is prior to theirs and they presuppose its ontological priority. It does not exist as a being with accidents, because if that were the case the divine would be composite, its own existence receiving completion from the existence of created beings. On the contrary, it exists as the beyond-beingness of being. For if artists in their art conceive the shapes of those things which they produce, and if universal nature conceives the forms of the things within it, how much more does God Himself bring into existence out of nothing the very being of all created things, since He is beyond being and even infinitely transcends the attribution of beyond-beingness. For it is He who has yoked the sciences to the arts so that shapes might be devised; it is He who has given to nature the energy which produces its forms, and who has established the very is-ness of beings by virtue of which they exist." Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue and Vice; First Century; Page 165; St. Maximos the Confessor; Philokalia Volume 2.



Then the only way to perceive the One is to return to the first cause which is God.

So I hope Through the Holy Spirit you may get the whole picture ... The divine connection ... The oneness ... The divine reality within ... and find the hidden Kingdom! And participate with all creation in the Cosmic Liturgy!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Richard Worthington wrote:


So the growth and development of the original union first of all must be freeing ourselves from the 'garments of skin', which happens through Christ, removing the fallen divisions but still retaining the original distinctions. Once this has happened, fully on the Last Day, then the growth and development towards God can continue apace! But as God is one, will we be destroyed in this union?

No we will be made more real and complete in this union with God.

Indeed the reason for our present separation from God is our own sin. However the manner in which this separation is overcome is not through a natural union with God- except through the Incarnation.

It is here through the Incarnation in fact that I think we can see what the manner of God's union of man really consists of. Note that through the Incarnation, Christ is in union with man through the full adoption of our humanity. It is this humanity that He makes His. And at the Ascension we can see that this sort of Incarnate union is to be eternal in Christ.

What is important in this discussion is the recognition of how for the Fathers the union between the Divine and created order which the Incarnation represents is a sign of the purpose for the very creation. This does not mean that this purpose has been completely fulfilled yet. But it does mean that the kind of union which the fulfillment of all things refers to is the fulfillment & restoration of their nature. Not its annihilation in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard,

I will admit to not really following much of your last post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=54921&postcount=10); I've read it several times, but cannot really make sense of it, I'm afraid.

Still, having read through it a few times, I don't see that you've really addressed the kinds of concerns that I was raising in my last post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=54911&postcount=9) - which is of course absolutely fine. There is certainly no imperative to respond in particular to my personal comments. However, I do feel that there is a very basic theological problem with the way you are attempting to talk about unity, union, distinction, relation, and similar themes; and that while it seems you're trying to say very noble and worthy things, this flaw causes what you're saying to become extremely problematic. The question is not really the relation of creator to creature, or created to uncreated, as raised in Rick's recent post (though that is an important distinction in its own right). Rather, the question is of the very definition, in the experience of the Trinity, of what 'unity' and 'person' mean. Getting this wrong, causes otherwise quite noble sentiments to become flatly incorrect, even anathema; and, at least in my perception, that is what is definitely happening in these recent comments.

I am not saying this to be confrontational: I do hope that is clear. But the revelation of the Trinity requires a new engagement with reality in truly triune terms. This is at the very heart of a life lived in Christ - who is not the Father, but in whom one beholds the Father truly.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[RichardWorthington]

Dear Father Deacon Matthew:

Glory to Christ who has granted us so great a salvation! …


Dear Richard,
I will admit to not really following much of your last post; I've read it several times, but cannot really make sense of it, I'm afraid.

… salvation so great that it is in our hearts rather than in our academic minds! I'll try to turn off my mind and write more simply! As Solomon almost says, "Of the making many posts there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.", Eccl. 12:12 :)


Still, having read through it a few times, I don't see that you've really addressed the kinds of concerns that I was raising in my last post - which is of course absolutely fine. There is certainly no imperative to respond in particular to my personal comments.

I was going to reply more in depth - I have already made a selection of quotations from both your and other's posts - but I think it would be better to lay my simplicity bare rather throw ideas around, ideas which can so easily be misunderstood! Also, I fundamentally agree with what I think people are trying to say!!! (I am a Trinitarian, do not believe in our being destroyed, etc.!)


Rather, the question is of the very definition, in the experience of the Trinity, of what 'unity' and 'person' mean.

When I first found Orthodoxy, in the books I was advised to read I had to come to terms with words like homoousios, hyperstasis, energia, and so on. "No Speakos Greekos!" The thing that comes to my mind about these is that they are based on ancient Greek philosophical thought - which is excellent, as the Fathers were talking to ancient Greeks! However, I am not an ancient Greek. Why can't the Orthodox Faith be taught in terms of our own modern day thinking? God is transcendent to both English and Greek - so why not use a language we understand to provide us with the guidelines of the truth? It seemed as though to be taught I had to learn ancient Greek philosophical thought and then pass onto being taught the Christian faith.

In traditional English teaching on the Trinity we talk about one nature and three persons. This is fine as far as it goes. However, read these quotations (from two booklets on the Holy Trinity from an Anglican bookstore):


"The Father, Son and Holy Spirit keep a safe distance; they do not collapse into one another but mutually coinhere. In our own experience of living in relationships, it is important that people do not surrender their identities to another"

"the shy person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, constantly points away from self preferring to highlight the other persons of the Trinity"

"The movements within God, like a divine dance from Father to Son, and Son to Father, and the mediation of the Spirit constantly opening up fresh possibilities within that relationship, describe the essentially missionary character of the Triune God."

"Pray to the ‘person’ of the Trinity whom you do know, thank him for your knowledge of him, repent of your unwillingness to grow in your experience of God, and ask him to reveal more of his own character and nature, and also to reveal the other ‘persons’ of the Trinity to you. … Try extending your prayer-life by praying to the ‘persons’ of the Trinity whom you do not normally address."

"Prayer to the Spirit is probably the most difficult (and the most suspect), perhaps because we find it easier to imagine the Father and the Son in personal terms."

Here our fallen understanding of what it is to be a 'person' is read back into the Trinity, along with our dividedness. Here we not only have distinctions but also divisions; on the Last Day our divisions will pass away but our distinctions shall remain. Do the Persons dwell wholly in each other or not? Is God shy? Do the Father and Son not know each other fully that they need the mediation of the Spirit to open up fresh possibilities?! To pray to one Person is identical to praying to all three! (Compare with the "our Father" actually being addressed to Father, Son, and Spirit equally in the Liturgy! I spoke about this in my post on the 'filioquibble' (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53169&postcount=19).)

My understanding of the Trinity is summed up to two Patristic quotations:


"The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession"

"no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead"

(St John of Damascus, "Orthodox Faith", book 1, ch. 2; St Gregory of Nyssa, On "Not Three Gods")

Here the only distinctions between the persons are those of origin. There is nothing else; there is no 'responding' of one Person to another, for that would be an operation, but in all the divine operations there is no difference. They are related, but do not relate as they already dwell wholly in each other. In what way am I misunderstanding?

Actually, to avoid the baggage in the words 'person' (e.g. emotions and thoughts) and 'nature' I find it easier to think in terms of 'who' and 'what'. In the Trinity there are one 'what' and three 'who'. For example, 'what' is our creator? Uncreated. 'Who' is our creator? Father, Son, Spirit. Also, in Christ there are two 'what' and one 'who': pointing to Christ walking about, we could ask: 'what' is that? A human body (in particular of the one of the Son of God). 'Who' is that? The Son of God. And during the Transfiguration: 'what' is that Light? Uncreated from the Uncreated. 'Who' is that, speaking about the Light? The Father, Son, and Spirit. 'Whose' body does the Light come from? The Son of God. (This makes it very simple to consider Christ being in 'one divine-human nature': there is one divine-human 'what', the term 'what' describing how He now exists, in two natures/'whats'. Well, I understand it even if I have just confused everyone else! Of course, my understanding may well not be what it is supposed to be … !)

How am I misunderstanding the Trinity? The Patristic quotations above seem quite clear to me (although if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing then I am a very dangerous man indeed!!).

Richard :)
PS I'll put down some thoughts on the other posts soon. Thank you everyone! :)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard, you wrote:



When I first found Orthodoxy, in the books I was advised to read I had to come to terms with words like homoousios, hyperstasis, energia, and so on. "No Speakos Greekos!" The thing that comes to my mind about these is that they are based on ancient Greek philosophical thought - which is excellent, as the Fathers were talking to ancient Greeks! However, I am not an ancient Greek. Why can't the Orthodox Faith be taught in terms of our own modern day thinking? God is transcendent to both English and Greek - so why not use a language we understand to provide us with the guidelines of the truth? It seemed as though to be taught I had to learn ancient Greek philosophical thought and then pass onto being taught the Christian faith.

I certainly agree that one is not bound to articulate trinity in terms of ousia-based language (which, actually, we weren't usuing that far in the thread!); and indeed, it is not the only manner in which the father speak of the eternal relations of Father, Son and Spirit. It became the dominant way of speaking in the late fourth century, but both before and after, there were (are) other ways in which the Church speaks of this mystery.

The challenge is to speak in a manner that allows one to articulate the mystery accurately, without destroying it. Part of the challenge facing attempts to speak in other terms in modern languages, is not the fact of using another expression, but of not fully understanding the nuance of what is implied in the more ancient articulations -- hence 'translating' them into other terms can cause many problems. If the traditional expression of ousia, hypostasis, etc. has any single advantage, it is that the Church has used it for over 1,500 years, and has had time to ponder its aspects, strengths, weaknesses, etc.

This I don't say, to repeat, to say that other ways of articulating God's being are not appropriate or valid; rather, simply to say that one must be careful.


In traditional English teaching on the Trinity we talk about one nature and three persons.

Actually, this is Greek and Latin, and particularly Latin, simply transliterated into English. In point of fact, what is meant by 'nature' and (more emphatically) 'person' in English has, traditionally, made these terms deeply difficult, with respect to understanding what they meant in their ancient usage in which they became the standards for discussion on Trinity. English simply adopted the terms in this context from older Latin conversations; but the terms are not quite the same in these languages.

You then quoted a few problematic quotations from an Anglican handbook. In summary of those, you wrote:


Here our fallen understanding of what it is to be a 'person' is read back into the Trinity, along with our dividedness. Here we not only have distinctions but also divisions; on the Last Day our divisions will pass away but our distinctions shall remain. Do the Persons dwell wholly in each other or not? Is God shy? Do the Father and Son not know each other fully that they need the mediation of the Spirit to open up fresh possibilities?! To pray to one Person is identical to praying to all three! (Compare with the "our Father" actually being addressed to Father, Son, and Spirit equally in the Liturgy! [...])

This is good at first: surely the comments you quoted have their problems. But your comments on prayer at the end are not correct. Prayers can be, and are, addressed to the individual persons of the holy Trinity: the daily cycle of prayers includes prayers addressed specifically to Father, others specifically to Son, others specifically to Spirit. It is not the case that to pray to one is identical to praying to all three, even if the prayer offered to one is offered to God in the fulness of trinity (which is why all prayers end with the trinitarian doxology); nonetheless, one prays to the specific person. A prayer to Christ is a prayer to Christ, not a prayer to the Father - even if this prayer is received by the Son in the fulness of his triune relation to Father and Son.

Stating, as you have, that praying to one person 'is identical to praying to all three', is again to make a fundamental error in conceiving trinity. The Trinity exists only in this eternal distinction of persons, ever relating. There is never conflation.


My understanding of the Trinity is summed up to two Patristic quotations:


"The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession"

"no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead"

(St John of Damascus, "Orthodox Faith", book 1, ch. 2; St Gregory of Nyssa, On "Not Three Gods")

Here the only distinctions between the persons are those of origin. There is nothing else; there is no 'responding' of one Person to another, for that would be an operation, but in all the divine operations there is no difference. They are related, but do not relate as they already dwell wholly in each other. In what way am I misunderstanding?

St Gregory does not, in the Ad Ablabium, use the language of 'dwelling in one another' so far as I recall. His point is that descriptive terms about activities are always acts of the subject - i.e., they indicate what someone is doing, not who one is; and in all acts of God, Father, Son and Spirit are one. There is no act, and therefore no name (e.g. creator, redeemer, sanctifier) that can be applied to one any more than another. Rather, what always uniquely distinguishes them is their relatedness to one another. This is not an act, but the state and nature of their existence in relation. The Father is always Father; the Son always the one begotten of the Father; the Spirit always the one that proceeds from the Father. These are distinctions (Father is not Son, Son not Spirit), and are irreducable.

Your statement, 'They are related, but do not relate as they already dwell wholly in each other', in some sense destroys precisely what St Gregory (and St John, paraphrasing) is trying to uphold. What makes them distinct, and what makes them one, is that they always relate. This is an eternal reality of divine being.


Actually, to avoid the baggage in the words 'person' (e.g. emotions and thoughts) and 'nature' I find it easier to think in terms of 'who' and 'what'. In the Trinity there are one 'what' and three 'who'. For example, 'what' is our creator? Uncreated. 'Who' is our creator? Father, Son, Spirit.

I'm afraid this is also quite problematic. As St Gregory specifies in his Ad Ablabium, as elsewhere, being uncreated is not a 'what', but a 'how' - it describes how God exists. To declare that 'uncreated' equals the answer to 'what is our creator?', is in fact a very specific heresy (Eunomianism), which is precisely what St Gregory spent most of his adult life combatting.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[RichardWorthington]

The Father is always Father; the Son always the one begotten of the Father; the Spirit always the one that proceeds from the Father. These are distinctions (Father is not Son, Son not Spirit), and are irreducable.


Dear Fr Deacon,

I firmly uphold your quotation above!! Of course - how could I recite the creed otherwise?!! :)

Yet your comments and prayer to the Persons of the Trinity have caused me to rethink.
I will need to consider and read some more.

In the meantime, I will consider some other points raised.

I am not theologically trained (e.g. I have heard the term Eunominism, but have not a clue what it is); I have had quite a few discussions with people on various subjects, and thought I had grasped them - however, as you can see my translating the terms from greek into english and then into simpler language has a positive side: I understand - however, what I understand may or not be related to what was being said!!

Richard

[Rick H.]

The challenge is to speak in a manner that allows one to articulate the mystery accurately, without destroying it.

[. . . ] This I don't say, to repeat, to say that other ways of articulating God's being are not appropriate or valid; rather, simply to say that one must be careful.



Dear All,

I think we are on the verge of another thread here as it relates to language and interpretation, and in this sense a true interpersonal communication (or not). I have been a member of this community for just over one year now, and I have read with fascination observing (and experiencing first hand) who can understand whom in these threads, as well as who doesn't have a clue what is said by certain others on a regular basis. And, while I also think there is some overlap in what is being said in some of the posts above with the "Who Speaks for Orthodoxy?" thread, I would like to share a quote that I have paraphrased before, but this time directly, and in full:




"I am at the present time a professor at a state university in Germany. I am what they call 'educated,' and 'academic.' That distinguishes me from the 'uneducated' nonacademicans, that is, from the people. I am, therefore, in the same situation as the Pharisees and the scribes in the time of Jesus, even if I have no intention of scorning the people, in New Testament Greek the ochlos, those masses of uneducated who have not studied and have not been able to keep the keep the Torah. If I were merely a 'study man,' then I could sit at my desk and think up beautiful educational schemes for the poor people and pronounce my hope for the people, but I would never speak from the people or with the people and could not say one word about the hope of the people.
.
In addition to being scholarly, academic theology is also pastoral theology. Our theological students also live in separation from the people who can no longer go to college or university. Our academic theology speaks with the Bible, the church fathers, and with other sciences and ideologies. But it does not speak the language of the people and does not express the experiences and hopes of the people. We research the theological concepts of earlier experiences but we seldom bring the contemporary religious experiences of the suffering or struggling people into new conceptuality. Our theological work thus separates us from the people. Therefore the people do not understand us."



Regardless of our level of formal training, there are many-many challenges with how 'we' speak, how 'we' write, how 'we' articulate Christian Theology. Even as I use the word theology here now, different folks will read and interpret it differently! Possibly, what has not been considered here so far is along the lines of who are we speaking to and why? And, beyond this, a poster in another forum wrote yesterday on this very subject of speaking/writing/articulating theology:




As a result of your post I am thinking there is a balance in these things.

So there is a right use of emotion, a right use of the intellect, and a right use of the spirit, and I wonder if these are often inverted in our experience? So that we become emotional or intellectual in our faith rather than being spiritual, and using the intellect and emotion under the guidance and control of the spirit for spiritual ends?



And, the fact that there are different schools of thought to be found at times within Eastern Orthodoxy does not make this any easier as we acknowledge that there are other ways of articulating theology proper and other branches of theology. But, this is the point, knowing we do not want to destroy it, there is more than one way to articulate theology which are appropriate and valid avenues. There are different levels of understanding and different modes of learning. And, to varying degrees, there will always be a lack of understanding, and a misinterpreting what is said no matter how hard we try to articulate and communicate with each other--this cannot be helped. But, what is new?

My two coppers worth.

In Christ,
Rick

[Tim Grass]

That's Rick's pretty condescending way of saying he doesn't like Matthew's post............. :::sigh::: .. but I guess he's probably used to that by now.

--tim

[RichardWorthington]

I have been a member of this community for just over one year now, and I have read with fascination observing (and experiencing first hand) who can understand whom in these threads, as well as who doesn't have a clue what is said by certain others on a regular basis.

Dear Rick,

"who doesn't have a clue" - LOL!
When I looked at the thread for the post you referred to earlier "Oneness and the Cosmic Liturgy" (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53829&postcount=85) I realised it was starting to talk about the logoi in creation. I quickly knew I was out of my depth! The logoi are the one thing I have been unable to have a feel for - even if other things I do have a feel for are completely misunderstood by me! (In ways it can be better to read something with quite the wrong idea rather than succumbing to the realisation that you cannot follow one word of it!) Perhaps I should overcome my initial reactions and try to explore it!

And thank for for your previous post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=54924&postcount=11) - I did find it very helpful.

Richard :)

[Rick H.]

Dear Tim,

I suspect your crystal ball needs a tune-up! I think there is a great discussion waiting in the wings as it relates to the very subject brought up in the interaction between Dcn. Matthew and Richard in this thread (viz. langauge/speech).


Dear Richard,

I would like to encourage you to explore it. I hope to pick back up with the Contemplation of the Divine Logos thread in the near future. Maybe I will see you there ! :)

In Christ,
Rick

[RichardWorthington]

Dear Fr Dcn Matthew, Fr Raphael, Mary, Nicolaj, Rick, Tim, and everyone else!

There are some things I am sure I grasp. However, some of those I may well understand wrongly - although others have come to be written on my heart. As such, if some of the replies to my original post are correct, then I am profoundly puzzled!


It's not our bodies that separate us. I still maintain, it's our sins that separate us.

That is very true, but in order to communicate ourselves to each other we still have to try to communicate by words, facial gestures, touch, etc. Surely there is a level of love for humanity in which you want to embrace everyone within yourself and fill them with the divine goodness you have within yourself? (For the record, this is just a nice idea, something that might be at the 'end of the tunnel', but I am still a long way from. But isn't it beautiful to think in such ways?) Such an opening up in no way implies anything like some forced destructive amalgamation! Love is not self-destructive, but self-emptying. Does not Christ love us in such a way?


(I wrote) <<One day, my fellow human being, my hand shall be physically within your hand, and your hand shall be within mine, and there shall be but one hand: the hand of Christ.>>
The sentiment that drives these words is noble: seeing true unity, and specifically, union in the resurrected Christ. But it is wrong, precisely because once again, unity is understood without trinitarian perspective. It must mean 'one-ity', which here causes all sorts of bizarre problems: hands within hands, etc., etc.

Perhaps if I rephrased myself:

Father Deacon Matthew, as you read this please hold up your hand [ ;) ]: one day, your hand shall be physically within Christ's hand, and Christ's hand shall be within yours, and there shall be but one hand: the hand of Matthew!

Does Christ wish to destroy Himself, or out of love beyond love to unite with you, so that neither you nor Himself are destroyed in any way, but enjoy a union beyond communion?

However, instead of throwing about various ideas on love and union between us, Christ, and in the Trinity, perhaps if someone could point out where I have misunderstood the words of both Christ and the Fathers then it might be more constructive:

Christ said, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him" (John 6:56). Is He merely talking about some 'spiritual' indwelling, or about a union involving His actual physical Body? St John Chrysostom comments (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.xlix.html), "This He said, showing that such an one is blended with (α νακιρναται) Him" - what does that Greek word mean?

Quoting St Paul, "For we, who are many, are one bread, one body", St John Chrysostom comments (see my 1st post) "And what do they become who partake of it? The Body of Christ: not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that the grains no where appear; they exist indeed, but their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunction; so are we conjoined both with each other and with Christ" (Homily XXIV on 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxv.html)). Here it is he who is stating that when we partake of communion we still exist but our differences will not be seen, as the grains in the bread.


But it does mean that the kind of union which the fulfillment of all things refers to is the fulfillment & restoration of their nature. Not its annihilation in Christ.

"My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and their horsemen!"

"annihilation" !!!!!!!! I never state or even insinuate such a thing!! :)

However, maybe you could enlighten us as to what this post is saying. For a certain 'Father Raphael' wrote previously to the Monachians in his e'post'le ("The Church: its nature, limit and boundaries" 4:70 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=45024/lpost45024) - page:post!) the following, quoting St Maximos the Confessor:


It is in this way that the holy Church of God will be shown to be working for us the same effects as God, in the same way as the image reflects its archetype. For numerous and of almost infinite number are the men, women, and children who are distinct from one another and vastly different by birth and appearance, by nationality and language, by customs and age, by opinions and skills, by manners and habits, by pursuits and studies, and still again by reputation, fortune, characteristics, and connections: All are born into the Church and through it are reborn and recreated in the Spirit.

To all in equal measure it gives and bestows one divine form and designation, to be Christ's and to carry His name. In accordance with faith it gives to all a single, simple, whole, and indivisible condition which does not allow us to bring to mind the existence of the myriads of differences among them, even if they do exist, through the universal relationship and union of all things with it [ie the Church].
(I found this by searching for the phrase from the Liturgy "union of all" - rather useful, eh?!)

So, Father, what am I saying that is so different from, "gives to all a single, simple, whole, and indivisible condition which does not allow us to bring to mind the existence of the myriads of differences among them, even if they do exist"?

In another thread I quoted (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=54755/lpost54755) from the Life of St Seraphim of Sarov where Nicholas Motovilov says:


You see the movement of his lips and the changing expression of his eyes, you hear his voice, you feel someone holding your shoulders; yet you do not see his hands, you do not even see yourself or his figure, but only a blinding light spreading far around

See and not see, and clearly feel but not feel: what is this saying that I am not?

How am I misunderstanding the above Patristic quotations? Granted my way of putting things across might be a bit bold, but why keep ourselves to traditional 'ecclesiastical' language which so often can be glossed over?

Richard
:confused:

[Rick H.]

How am I misunderstanding the above Patristic quotations? Granted my way of putting things across might be a bit bold, but why keep ourselves to traditional 'ecclesiastical' language which so often can be glossed over?




Dear Richard,

I cannot see how you are misunderstanding the above Patristic quotations. As far as your comment/question about limiting our language, I feel compelled to share a quote with you that was shared with me recently in another forum, by someone who thought I would appreciate it:





Your post reminded me to that comment of Jacob Bar Hebraeus from The Dove cited here, but which bears repeating:

"When I had given much thought and pondered on the matter, I became convinced that these quarrels of Christians among themselves are not a matter of factual substance, but rather one of words and terms. For they all confess Christ Our Lord to be perfect God and perfect human, without any commingling, mixing, or confusion of the natures. This bipinnate 'likeness' ( Phil. 2:6-7) is termed by one party a 'nature', by another 'a hypostasis' and by yet another a 'person'. Thus I saw all the Christian communities, with their different Christological positions, as possessing a single common ground that is without any difference. Accordingly I totally eradicated any hatred from the depths of my heart, and I completely renounced disputing with anyone over confessional matters."



And, obviously Bar Hebraeus is not saying that there are not differences or that these differences do not matter. To read him further one sees there is a systematic keeping of the gate, but not a system engineered for the purpose of keeping souls out! And, not a gate manned by those who are indifferent to the plight of the pilgrim who may pass by, but in the case of Bar Hebreaus, a gate manned by the passionate follower of Christ who has a zeal for the inner life, for the true life in the Spirit of Christ.

So, as you ask about limiting ourselves to traditional ecclesiastical language I think the above comments about words and terms and factual substance as well as what is in the depth of our heart will easily provide guidance for one considering such as the possession of a single common ground, or confessional matters.

When to limit, when to transcend?

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

"No Speakos Greekos!"

Giggles... Milation Anglikation?

[RichardWorthington]

Nina,

I have dark curly hair, and so people have mistaken me for a Greek before now.

Once or twice when visiting Orthodox monasteries I have had people come up to me speaking in Greek - I think my blank look tells them that I have not understood a word!!

Richard

[Anna Stickles]

Richard,

I am glad Nina's comment brought this post back up. Some of these issues are things I have been struggling with for a while and the discussion on this thread helped some things come clear. God willing maybe I can share.

"
one day, your hand shall be physically within Christ's hand, and Christ's hand shall be within yours," I think this is a great image along with many other things you say. What I think you are trying to get at is that there is no longer any barriers to communication. We can perfectly communicate ourselves to each other and God to us.

Below you said


and there shall be but one hand: the hand of Matthew!"

and earlier in the first post you said

and there shall be but one hand: the hand of Christ]. And here we can see the problem -who's hand is it if it is only one hand? The patristic quote you gave used the word "conjoin" this is not the same as "become" which is what you are implying the way you are talking in the above quotes. Here you say it specifically and bold it.

again you said

My whole self will be within yourself, and your whole self will be within myself our ‘self’ will become Christ – both "I and Thou" and "I and I" together. Our feelings, emotions and thoughts, all of which are very personal to us (to the point of acute pain and agony should they sometimes be uncovered), shall be healed. Our thoughts and feelings shall become one: my thoughts shall be your thoughts, and your feelings shall be my feelings, and no longer shall we have our "tunics of skin" to hide from God and from each other; we shall be both naked and transparent , the one being seen in the other. We shall not ‘surrender our identities’, but unhide and open ourselves up as divine love leads us to divine union.


Let me give an example of the problem here. My foot cannot become my hand and still remain my foot. I cannot become Christ and still remain Anna. Considering the other things you say I think that that the underlying place where you are trying to go is very good, but the wording is poor.

Is the wording that important? Well, I think it is because of how in subtle ways it can effect our thinking. Thinking in terms of identification rather then communion is an open door to pride. Of course we would never actually think that we could become Christ in essence, but in talking about becoming one, we lose the very important distinction that God became man so that man could become God, not in essence but by participation.

Thus we can talk about communion, conjoining, communication but should avoid words and ways of sayig things that imply a monadic identification. I think that this is what Fr Dcn Matthew was saying about naunces.


The challenge is to speak in a manner that allows one to articulate the mystery accurately, without destroying it. Part of the challenge facing attempts to speak in other terms in modern languages, is not the fact of using another expression, but of not fully understanding the nuance of what is implied in the more ancient articulations -- hence 'translating' them into other terms can cause many problems.

Maybe we could reword this way -- one day, your hand shall be physically within Christ's hand, and Christ's hand shall be within yours and they will move to the same will in a perfect harmony of action. On thoughts we can say that someday we will perfectly communicate such that there is no disharmony or misunderstanding or loss of meaning between my thoughts and your thoughts. Using an analogy from Elder Paisios - we will be perfectly tuned to the same radio station rather then having all the current static and sometimes being on completely different stations.

Think of a body with all it's different cells, each fully conscious both of itself and its own unique action and being and also fully aware of the others as they are in their action and being and all also aware of the movement of the whole body. no one cell is trying to remake other cells into their own likeness, no cell is trying to become something else but rather there is a perfect and full communion of action and communication of being. No one cell is the whole body, neither is the body any one cell.

Of course who knows if this picture is any good. I think there are a lot of warnings in the Fathers about using the imagination to picture spiritual realities, and maybe it is best just to leave things like this mostly be.

[Nina]

Nina,
I have not understood a word!!

Richard

Same method with you, different means. :) However I was asking if you speak English. Never mind. In general I find amusement everywhere. And I found 'no speakos greekos', funny. Maybe I should get more serious in the future.