Patristic views on 'orthodoxy' and the contours of 'heterodoxy'

[Owen Jones]

(Note from the moderators: This post and the six to follow (up to #7 in this thread) have been moved here from another thread, as a means of bringing out this particular theme in its own right. The contents of this first post in the thread have been shortened slightly from their original contents in the other thread, leaving here just the portions that set up the new discussion.)

Submission to the Church and its teaching presumes a level of purification and illumination first. Otherwise we are adopting dogma as an opinion as to the meaning of words, and we end up on this merry go round in which the Catholics say here is what it means and we say here is what it means and we are at an epistemological impasse. And quite apart from Catholics and Protestants, if we simply submit to the dogma without realizing what the dogma is for, we are lost.

Yes, there is a certain common sense level at which anyone can presumably pick up the Bible and read it and get something out of it, and the same applies to Church dogma. But we know from experience, sometimes some of us very personal experience, that more often than not this leads to corruption and abuse, what Romanides terms a sickness of the brain, which he calls religion. That is, we use the Bible and theology for religious purposes, because there has been no purification and illumination. And what do we think all of these tirades by Jesus against the Pharisees are all about anyway? Is he just mad at them because they are not charitable enough to suit him? Or is there much more to it than that?

[Owen Jones]

Forgive me for quoting these long passages, but here is where I think our starting point has to be, when we are trying to discern heterodoxy:


The healing of man’s soul is the Orthodox Church’s main provision. The Church has always focused on healing the realm of the heart. She had come to discern – from within Jewish tradition and from Christ Himself and His Apostles - that within the space of the biological heart there functions something that the Fathers had named “nous”. In other words, they took the traditional “nous”, which generally signified intellect and reason, and applied a differentiation to it. They gave the name “nous” to that mental energy which functions inside the heart of a spiritually healthy person. We do not know exactly when this differentiation took place, because it so happens that certain Fathers used the same word (“nous”) when referring to logic, but also when referring to the mental energy when it descends and functions inside the space of the heart.

Thus, when looking at it from this point of view, mental energy is said to be the one and only energy of the soul, which, inside the brain functions as “logic”, but also functions simultaneously inside the heart as “nous”. In other words, the same organ, the “nous”, prays incessantly inside the heart (naturally of those who possess the incessant cardiac prayer) and at the same time processes –for example-mathematical problems and other such things, inside the brain.

We need to clarify that what the Apostle Paul calls “nous”, coincides with what the Fathers call “intellect”. This is a difference in terminology. When the Apostle Paul says “I shall pray in spirit”, he means what the Fathers say, that “I shall pray with my mind/intellect”. And when he says that “I shall pray with my mind”, he means “I shall pray with my intellect”. The name “nous” of the Fathers is not the Apostle Paul’s “nous”; it is the spirit of the Apostle Paul. When he says «I shall pray with my mind”, or “I chant with the mind”, or “I chant in the spirit”, and when he says that the Spirit of God is a co-witness with our own spirit, he means with this word what the Fathers called “nous”. And with the word “nous”, he implies intellect, logic.

In his expression “the Spirit of God is a co-witness with our own spirit”, he is referring to two spirits: the Spirit of God, and the human spirit. This human spirit – through some weird kind of evolution – appeared to have been named “nous” much later, during the era of Saint Makarios the Egyptian, leaving only the terms “logos” (reasoning) and “intellect” to relate to man’s logic. This is the way that the “nous” came to relate to the “spirit”; that is, to the “heart”. Because man’s spiritual realm is in the heart, according to the Apostle Paul [i]. Thus, for the Apostle Paul, logical worship is enacted by the “nous” (that is, with the intellect, with logic), while the mental (noetic) prayer is enacted by the spirit, and it is a spiritual wish – in other words, the cardiac prayer [ii]. Therefore, when the Apostle Paul says « …but I would rather say five words from my nous to the church so that I might catechize others, than tens of thousands of words from the mouth»[iii] it means that he preferred to say five words – to actually speak five words, that is – in order to catechize others, rather than pray mentally. What the Apostle is saying here, is interpreted by certain monks that the Apostle was referring to the “Jesus prayer”, that is, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me”, which consists of just a few words. But the Apostle Paul here is referring to the spoken words with which he catechized others[iv]. Because, how can catechesis be possible with mental (noetic) prayers, when mental praying is an internal function of man and the audience surrounding the speaker hears nothing? Catechesis therefore is performed through logical teaching and logical worship. We teach and we speak by means of logic, which is the usual form of communication between people[v].

But communication also exists between those who possess the mental (noetic) prayer inside their heart. In other words, they possess the ability to sit alongside each other and communicate among themselves mentally/ noetically, without conversing verbally; in other words, through a spiritual communication between them. This of course can occur even with large distances between them. These persons also possess the charisma of insight and foresight. With the gift of insight, they are enabled to detect the sins of every person as well as their thoughts, while with the gift of foresight they are enabled to see and to speak of future things, acts and events. Charismatic persons such as these do actually exist, and, if you were to go to such a person for the purpose of confession, you would see that they already “know” everything that you have done in your life, before you even open your mouth to tell them about it.

[Owen Jones]

2. Who can be regarded a «psychopath», according to the Fathers of the Church?

Each and every person is a psychopath (*), in the Patristic sense of the term. One doesn’t have to be schizophrenic to be a psychopath. The definition of psychopathy from the Patristic point of view is that psychopathy is latent, wherever noetic energy is not functioning properly inside a person; in other words, when the nous of man is full of thoughts – not only bad thoughts, but even good thoughts also[vi].

The person, who has thoughts – good or bad – inside his heart, is the person who from a Patristic point of view is a psychopath. Regardless even if those thoughts are moral – even supremely moral – or whatever else they may be. In other words, according to the Fathers of the Church, whoever has not undergone catharsis of the soul and cleansed of his passions and has not reached the state of enlightenment by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, is a psychopath. But he is not a psychopath as perceived by Psychiatry. To a psychiatrist, a psychopath is a different thing altogether; it is the person suffering from psychosis, a schizophrenic. The question is posed, however, as to whether a person who has not undergone catharsis of the soul can or cannot be considered by Orthodoxy as being a “normal” person. That is the issue.

Who is the “normal” Orthodox Christian in the Patristic Tradition? If you want a clear picture of this, then you must read the Service for the Holy Baptism, the Service for the preparation of Holy Myrrh that is performed in the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Holy Thursday of Easter; you must also read the Service for the Inauguration of Holy Temples. You will discover in those texts the meaning of the expression “temple of the Holy Spirit”; you will see for yourself who an enlightened person is.

All the Divine Services, as well as the ascetic tradition of the Church, indicate three spiritual states: (1) the catharsis of the soul and the body from passions, (2) the enlightenment of the ‘nous’ of man by the Grace of the Holy Spirit and (3), the theosis (deification) of the soul and the body of man. However, they chiefly speak of catharsis and enlightenment, given that the Services of the church are expressions of logical worship. Hence, who can be considered a “normal” Orthodox? The one who is baptized, but not cleansed through catharsis? The not-enlightened one? Or is it the one who has undergone catharsis and enlightenment? Naturally, it is the latter; he is the model of a “normal” Orthodox.

So, in what area do “normal” Orthodox persons differ, from the other Orthodox? Is it in the dogma? Of course not. Take the Orthodox in general; they all have the same dogma between them, the same tradition and the same common worship. Inside a holy temple there might be –say – three hundred Orthodox. Of them, only five are in a state of enlightenment. In fact, the remaining churchgoers in the example have no idea, even about what catharsis is. So, the question is posed: How many are the “normal” Orthodox Christians in this example? Unfortunately, only the five are.

But, catharsis and enlightenment are specific stages of therapy, which are ascertained by experienced and enlightened spiritual fathers. So, what we have here are criteria of a purely medical nature. Or are these criteria not so medical in nature? If the ‘nous’ is a natural organ of man, of every man – because it is not only the Greeks or the Orthodox that possess a ‘nous’, but Muslims and Buddhists and every single person in the world – it stands to reason that all people are in need of catharsis and enlightenment, and the therapeutic regimen for these is one. Or could there be more than one therapy for this ailment? And furthermore, is it truly an ailment, or not?

(*) psychopath : Greek, psyche (soul) + pathos (ailment, suffering)

[Owen Jones]

This short, pithy passage then lays out with brilliant clarity the nature of the heterodoxy problem:


On matters like these however, contemporary Orthodox find it difficult to give replies, because in our day, they have alienated themselves so much from this tradition, that they not longer consider the Orthodox Christian ‘regimen’ in the context of ailment and therapy. They no longer regard Orthodoxy as a therapeutic regimen, even though all of the prayers of the Church are quite clear on this point; because, who, after all, is Christ for the Orthodox Christian? Isn’t He constantly addressed in the benedictions and the ‘troparia’ hymns of the Church as “the physician of our souls and our bodies”?

If you were to examine Papist or Protestant tradition, this form of address for Christ (as a physician) is nowhere to be found! Christ is called a “physician”, only in the Orthodox Tradition. So, why was this tradition erased from the Papists and the Protestants, and why is it, when we Orthodox speak of a therapeutic regimen, they are surprised? The reason is that the need for catharsis and enlightenment and the need for inner change have left these people, in their Theology. According to them, it is not the person who changes; it is God! According to them, man does not change. The only thing that man has to do – according to them – is to become a “good guy”. And when a former “bad guy” becomes a “good guy”, that is when God will love him. Otherwise, God will abhor him! If that person remains or becomes a “bad guy”, then God will simply not love him! In other words, if a person becomes a “good guy”, then God will change and be good to him; and now, instead of not loving that person, God will now love him! When a person becomes a “bad guy”, God becomes angry, and, when a person becomes a “good guy”, God becomes happy! Unfortunately, this is what is happening in Europe.

[Owen Jones]

Now this wonderful summary of what Orthodoxy is:



4. What “Orthodoxy” is

Amid all this evolution however, there was also the counter-offensive by the Orthodox people – the Orthodox civilization. But what, exactly, does the term “Orthodox civilization” involve? Is it a civilization, the way that the Western civilization is perceived? No. Orthodoxy is not a civilization, even if Toynbee calls it a civilization. Why is that? Because Orthodoxy is a science, and in fact a medical science according to today’s criteria. It is not a civilization. Orthodoxy is not a political or social system, because it pertains to the personal salvation of man; i.e., to the salvation of his soul. Orthodox depends on these two things: that “the Logos became flesh” [ix] and that “in Hades there is no repentance”.

In Orthodoxy, there are of course the presuppositions for the creation of a civilization. But Orthodoxy is not a civilization. Furthermore, Orthodoxy is not a religion either. Orthodoxy is not a religion, like all the other religions. Orthodoxy is distinguished by one, unique phenomenon, which is not found in any of the other religions – it is the anthropological and therapeutic element. That is where Orthodoxy differs. Orthodoxy is a therapeutic regimen, which heals the human personality.

A proper doctor will tend to the healing of every single patient without exception and without any discrimination. He will not single out only a certain number of people to heal. He will not be interested in their social status or their level of education or their moral standing. A proper doctor will only examine if the person consulting him is sick or not. And if that person is sick, he will show his concern and will strive to heal him. He will strive to heal that person’s ailment. He is obliged to heal him. In Orthodox tradition, we in fact have something more than this. And that is precisely what our “counter-offensive” consists of.

God loves not only the saints but all people, without exception; all the sinners, all the damned, and even the devil himself. And He also desires to save everyone, to heal everyone. He desires this, but He cannot heal everyone, because not everyone wants to be healed. This fact – that God is Love, that He wants to heal everyone and that He loves everyone equally – was discerned and continues to be discerned during the experiences of ‘theumens’; in other words, of those who have reached the state of theosis (deification), or ‘theopty’, which means they have ‘seen’ God.

God cannot heal everyone, because He never violates the free will of man. God respects man and loves him; but He cannot heal someone forcefully. He only heals those who desire to be healed and who ask Him to heal them. Normally, when someone has a physical or spiritual ailment, he goes to the doctor of his own free will to get well and is not forced to do it (provided that person still has his senses). The same applies with the Orthodox therapeutic regimen. One has to go on his own to the Church; without any coercion, without any oppression and of his own free will, to seek out the most suitable persons therein (who must have the necessary enlightenment and experience and who must also be familiarized with the therapeutic method of the Orthodox tradition) and show obedience to them, in order to find therapy.

[Owen Jones]

So, finally, (you are probably thinking, thank God!) on what basis can we say that another religious tradition is heterodox? What is the difference between Orthodox and anybody else? ----



5. The social scope of Orthodoxy

So, we now ask, “What is the social aspect of the matter?”

We have the person – any person who is living inside a society – who has to act as a healthy social unit. The therapy that we mentioned previously, regarding the noetic energy of man’s soul, when completed, will automatically produce a social person; in other words, a person with a robust soul, who will become active socially, in every area. And he who is thus automatically healed, is tacitly ordained a physician for the others – the still unhealed. This is because the medical science called “Orthodoxy” differs from all the other sciences, inasmuch as the one who is healed automatically becomes a healer. The implementation itself of the therapeutic regimen on oneself becomes the means for healing others. This is why it is inconceivable for a person who has been healed to not have any spiritual children, i.e., those who are in a spiritual dependence with him, whom he will counsel and guide towards their subsequent healing.

In the ancient Church, there was no official or specific ‘therapist’, given that every Christian was a healer. That was the mission of the ancient Church. The missionary task of the ancient Church was not the same as today’s Orthodox Church, which at times consists of an advertising of our wonderful dogmas or our tradition of worship, as though these are some kind of products being displayed fro sale. We say for example: “Look here, children! We have the finest dogmas, the best form of worship, the best-sounding cantors, the most beautiful attire… see how lovely the Bishop’s cape is! etc., and we strive to impress others with our pastoral staffs, our cassocks, our stoles, when attempting to do missionary work. Of course there might be a certain degree of sense and success in a mission performed in such a manner, but that is not the genuine form of missionary work, the way that the ancient Church saw it.

Nowadays, missionary work is comprised mainly of the following: We enlighten people who are superstitious and we make them Orthodox Christians, without trying to heal them. But in doing this, we have been replacing or exchanging their previous dogma with another, new dogma. We exchange inside them the one superstition with another superstition. And this is because when Orthodoxy is presented and offered in such a way, one can only wonder, how does it differs from a superstition? If Orthodoxy is presented and provided like a Christianity that does not heal (even though its chief role is healing), then how is it different to a superstition?

There are Christians in the West, who likewise have dogmas themselves, and who even acknowledge certain Synods; in other words, there are heretics whose dogmas do not appear to have any huge differences when compared to the Orthodox dogmas. The difference is not as vast as the one between Christians and idolaters. Therefore, if the Orthodox dogmas do not have a seemingly awesome difference with those of the heterodox Christians, and, if the Orthodox dogmatic teaching (the way it is being taught today in Greece) is totally unrelated to the therapeutic regimen of the Orthodox Tradition, then how does the Orthodox tradition differ from the tradition of the heterodox, from this aspect? And why should a non-Orthodox believe in Orthodoxy and not some other Christian dogma, since both of them, in the way they are presented, are certainly not presented as paths that lead towards healing, but as superstitions?

Nowadays, we are looking at changing man’s mentality, at changing the dogma, at changing the way we look at life, and thus construe this as repentance. Nowadays in Orthodoxy, repentance is linked only to the acceptance of Christ. In other words, we accept Christ, and, because we have accepted Him, we go to church, light a candle every now and then, and we even become “good guys”; and, if we are youngsters, we go to Sunday School or, if we are adults, we might go to an occasional religious event and – supposedly – this proves we are living in repentance; that is, we are supposedly penitents. Or, if we have done something bad in our life and have felt some degree of contrition and have asked for forgiveness, we also call this ‘repentance’. But this is not repentance. This is simply remorse or regret. Regret is just the beginning of repentance. Man’s soul is not cleansed through mere regret. For the soul of man to be cleansed of its passions, it must be preceded by a fear of God and repentance, which continues during the stage of catharsis and is completed upon divine enlightenment; i.e., the enlightening of man’s ‘nous’ by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

So, if the Orthodox no longer preoccupy themselves with this therapeutic regimen, in what do they differ from the non-Orthodox? In the dogma? What do they need the Orthodox dogma for, if they don’t use it for the healing of their soul? The dogma will be of no use to them in this way.

[Owen Jones]

Let me then just add a couple of my own observations. First of all, just because the Philokalia does not present things in this same fashion with the same language does not mean that Romanides is not being consistent. The desert fathers could rightly assume that they are speaking to illumined ones who experientially understood the words in the proper context. We don't today, so it has to be spelled out differently.

More importantly, these passages from Romanides explain why most believers today, including most Orthodox, are anxious most of the time. This anxiousness is ongoing and we notice it and we don't know what it's all about, and we think we can fix it by arguing and debating within ourselves and with others about what we are supposed be believing and doing, and what it all means, etc., and it doesn't work.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

I have created this thread by moving the above seven posts from the The nature of Roman Catholic heterodoxy thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5885), which has since been closed. I took the decision to close that thread because, even though the specific question of the rift between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is an issue to which the patristic heritage can and does speak, on-line discussion of it so often and so easily (as there) stirs up the passions and becomes aggressive, polemical, etc. There is enough of this on the internet! We needn't foster it any further here.

It is my hope that this new thread, into which I've moved a series of posts made by Seraphim (a.k.a. Owen), might, however, provide a context to explore, in a dispassionate environment of mutual, critical humility, what the Fathers have to say on the very basic and fundamental questions of 'orthodoxy' and 'heterodoxy'. Let us try, for the time being, to refrain as much as possible from speaking in terms of specific confessions: there is something more at the root to be had, which comes in the very question of what it means to identify something as 'heterodox' or 'orthodox' -- terms which are themselves theological more than they are ecclesiological, and which arise some centuries into the Church's life. What are they? How do the Fathers see them?

I hope there is some ground here for fruitful and edifying discussion.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I guess not!!!!!

[Owen Jones]

I think Fr. Dn. Matthew assumed that by separating these extended quotes from the prior thread it would lead to some focused discussion. Obviously that has not been the case. Let me suggest the following as a jumping off point. If we follow the line of argument set out above, then the conventional methods for determining heterodoxy are false or invalid. Comments?

[Rick H.]

[

Submission to the Church and its teaching presumes a level of purification and illumination first. Otherwise we are adopting dogma as an opinion as to the meaning of words, and we end up on this merry go round . . .






. . . just because the Philokalia does not present things in this same fashion with the same language does not mean that Romanides is not being consistent. The desert fathers could rightly assume that they are speaking to illumined ones who experientially understood the words in the proper context. We don't today, so it has to be spelled out differently.






If we follow the line of argument set out above, then the conventional methods for determining heterodoxy are false or invalid. Comments?



I have wondered in the past, if there is a focusing exclusively on a more academic approach or theological terms/language (including ecclesiological terms), in order to identify what is heterodox, how could this not result a theology of anxiety, a merry-go-round. How could this approach not result in anxious speech/language which moves to a place of arguing and debating in short order., and in the end, results in a perpetual 'who's on first routine?'

But, as I consider the suggestion:" . . . just because the Philokalia does not present things in this same fashion with the same language does not mean that Romanides is not being consistent," this changes things. For we who are not illumined, who do not understand experientially the words of the desert fathers, things would need to be spelled out differently (if there is any desire to communicate what is Orthodox or what is heterodox in a way that stops the merry-go-round). But, would this really be considered unconventional?

I'm thinking of a post Andreas made in the past:




Fr Sophrony does write in a loose and seemingly unstructured manner which is his own language and so different from the usual style of theologians. But he also had to express himself in a way which would persuade contemporary theologians of the truth of what he experienced. He charged his followers, notably Fr Zacharias, to tell theologians on their own terms about his teaching.



So, with the above comments on the three-fold path in Orthodoxy in mind, along with a consideration of methods for identifying heterodoxy, the question is also on whose terms will this be discussed.