Extreme forms of monastic asceticism and fasting

[Sunny]

I am currently reading the "Matericon-counsels from Abba Isaiah to Nun Theodora." I'm trying to understand the thinking behind the extreme asceticism that I read about. There are comments encouraging the shriveling of the body (by pretty much starving yourself) for example. There's constant comments on stillness and solitude which I kind of understand, but the shriveling of the body thing is perplexing. There was also a monastic in Valaam Monastery who died, and they discovered that his toe nails had grown right through his shoes and so he must have been in extreme pain with that. He must never have bathed (removed his shoes either)! This is unhealthy. Do monastics not bathe for some reason?
I have a hard time relating this to my concept of the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't imagine Him not bathing for years and withering Himself. Just how sure are we that God has led these monastics to this kind of life? In writing about these men and publishing these articles, are the monasteries saying that this kind of life is the best or highest one? Jesus ate and walked and slept and went to church-normal things that we can do. How do we assimilate all the strange monastic things we read and try to figure out what it means to us personally? Are these examples the standard by which we measure our lives?
How do extremes of asceticism fit into our Orthodox faith?
Sunny

[Bratislav]

Dear in Christ Sunny,

This is a very large topic and I think very much could be said and probably already has elsewhere on Monachos.

But where we can start is with Christ's 40 day fast. I cannot believe otherwise than that when He emerged from the harsh desert with no or very little physical sustenance He looked a bit worn and gaunt- perhaps a little "shriveled" even, as your book translates the words of Abba Isaiah.

I have little time to write more right now but hopefully we can get a nice discussion going here.

-Bratislav

[Kieran P.]

Hiya Sunny,

I hope you don't mind a Catholic interjection here. Far as I know, there have always been severe ascetics in our faith, including John the Baptist. In the west, religious orders may be founded around one aspect of Jesus life, whereby religious sanctify their work by imitating The Master.

An example of this is the three vows of poverty, obedience and chastity taken by the Franciscans. This can lead to an ascetic and mendicant lifestyle, and there have been many other Franciscan orders each trying to come closer to the spirit of St Francis.

One aspect which troubled me in your post is the monk whose toenails grew through his shoes. Surely when we perform ascetic duties we must take care not to let these practices become overly external, either in the observance or in how others observe us? Surely we can remain clean and conceal our efforts? Isn't this what Jesus tells us in the Sermon on the Mount?

Also, should he not have been told to change his shoes at some stage and have to comply under obedience? Surely our Lord requires martyrdom from some, but not in this sense?

An addiction to ascetic practices which goes overboard (in the sense of becoming an act of masochism) is what we in the west call vainglory, and in the east is called prelest. It's asceticism for its own sake.

Having said this, I'd hate to sound like I'm impugning the piety of the holy man who died in such a way. I'm certain his love for Jesus was complete.

God bless

[Sr Rebecca Gabl]

From what I've read and experienced, it's all a very individual thing. At the monastery where I was (and there are probably many monasteries like this), we had all the basic needs (6-7 hours of sleep, simple but nutritious food, bathing at least once a week), but usually without the "frills" that most westerners see as necessities. On feasts, and sometimes other occasions, we would have treats or fancier food. But then we'd appreciate it all the more, and take it in the spirit of rejoicing in the feast. I noticed that once I got used to denying myself (and it doesn't take much for me, a weakling, to feel as though I'm denying myself!), when I'd get a little thing like a chocolate bar, I'd be satisfied with just a few bites, not always wanting more like the "greedy Westerner".

I've read in a number of places (sorry, can't tell you where), and heard from monastics themselves, that as the world becomes less and less holy, ascetic feats will become fewer and fewer. Now, we just have to struggle to keep the commandments, love our neighbors, repent of our sins, be moderate in food and drink...if we could be successful in just that, we'd be on the road to Heaven. Also, they talk about taking it slowly. As one becomes more spiritually and physically used to different "hardships" or "denials," one will be able to take on more and more. Or the soul will be purified, so these physical things will become less and less important, and one will naturally have a more ascetic lifestyle...

Oh, what do I know? I hope I don't sound too full of myself...Just rattling off some thoughts.

[Mary]

I have a hard time relating this to my concept of the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't imagine Him not bathing for years and withering Himself. Just how sure are we that God has led these monastics to this kind of life? In writing about these men and publishing these articles, are the monasteries saying that this kind of life is the best or highest one? Jesus ate and walked and slept and went to church-normal things that we can do. How do we assimilate all the strange monastic things we read and try to figure out what it means to us personally? Are these examples the standard by which we measure our lives?
How do extremes of asceticism fit into our Orthodox faith?
Sunny

I shouldn't be responding to this, because I do not have any answers. Jesus didn't have anything He needed to repent of, so He didn't need to lead an abnormal life. But even He fasted and took up His Cross.

In regards to the Valaam Monk - about the toe-nails, I have nothing to say, except that maybe he was so deep in prayer that the last thing on his mind was his toe-nails and his body odor! The worst story I heard was over 10 years ago, so I have forgotten her name - I don't even know if she was Roman Catholic or Orthodox or if she was a saint or not - my teacher read her story in class (Bible School) - She was taking care of homeless people, most of whom were really ill and had ugly sores and lesions on their body. She didn't think it was right of her to feel so disgusted when she washed their wounds, so, to cure herself of the repulsion she felt, she collected a bowl of pus and drank it. The story didn't clarify whether she succeeded in curing herself of her feelings of disgust and repulsion or if she died soon after. Personally, I think it's perfecly ok to be disgusted, but not allow that to keep you from helping that person.

About starving yourself until you shrivel up... I understand that. I'm not sure why, but I decided after the first week of Lent that I loved the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete too much to be done with it after the first week. So, I've been using it every morning as my morning prayers. Seems it changes every week! But one thing doesn't change - by the end of the week, I can feel the leprousy, the sores and lesions in my soul, I can even taste it. Starting yesterday, I feel like I'm housing something that's dead and rotting, I feel like anyone or anything I touch - either by my words (by talking or posting messages online) or by sight (can't look upon the icons or my children or even myself in the mirror) or with my hands (crossing myself, lighting candles, doing things for someone), will be defiled. So besides praying for compunction and trying to figure out if I can spend the day doing prostrations while the house miraculously cleans itself and dinner cooks itself and the kids take care of themeselves while I try to save my soul - I am discovering a new feeling inside of me - disgust at the very site or thought of food. I'd be happy to starve to death right now.

Having said that, there's the other side of me that gets depressed and gravitates to the food - as a concrete example of how I gravitate towards sin, even though I know it's going to kill me.

So, here I am, still a slave to my passions, because I haven't learned how to starve myself. Please pray for me.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Fr Cyprian (Humphrey)]

Ultimately, it seems this is a question about perceptions of unhealthy asceticism. Certainly, there are some aberrations out there in the monastic world, but I feel a little hesitant to judge them.

It seems to me, to be related to two concepts: the individual's ascetic rule (possibly shared by a larger community), and God-given grace for certain podvigs.

I personally am ex-army. That colours my approach to asceticism. Having done stupid things like go camping with 200 of my closest heavily armed friends with minimal resources for hygeine for extended periods of time, and getting a cumulative amount of 2 hours sleep over 5 days while sitting in a slit-trench, I am leery of a few things that I see and read about being done.

I have visited monasteries where people bathe more infrequently than the average person (once every week or couple of weeks). I just found myself feeling so "icky" that I couldn't focus on anything but my discomfort.

Also, having experienced sleep deprivation that created some interesting (and potentially dangerous, especially when you're armed!) halluncinations, I don't think that kind of thing is for everyone - or all monks.

However, when it is appropriate to the person's repentance, these (and possibly other) "crazy" feats might be done. For example, if a person had a major problems with laziness and sloth, maybe some paring down on sleep (always under the guidance of an experienced spiritual father/mother!!) would be appropriate. Also, when God grants His grace to certain people to be sleepless (St John of Shanghai and San Francisco for example), this is a supernatural feat, and not one to be replicated at whim.

Maybe if someone was repenting of certain sins that may be associated with their feet (ie. going down wrong paths, etc.), it may make a certain level of sense to ignore what we might call regular hygeine. I don't really know about the individual, and I'm not commenting on the monk who had his toenails grow into his shoes, but I'm just trying to say that there may be more to it than it seems.

Someone may be repenting of being very vain and being concerned with how people perceive them, and therefore not concerned with a daily shower. I personally, am more fearful of offending someone with my body odour.

In the Ladder, there is reference to extreme feats of asceticism done by monks in the prison (chapter 4 I think - please correct me if I'm wrong!). I've heard many people criticize the Ladder for that passage because they think it's encouraging mental illness. However, when I read the Ladder in it's entirety I don't get that sense at all. I suspect the context may have something to do with it. Even when I was in (a Protestant) Bible College, a regularly heard refrain was "context, context, context!"

Ultimately, the context of a person's individual repentance, and blessings is important to consider.

But this is only my 2 cents worth. Feel free to ignore it.

the unworthy Rhiasaphormonk,
Cyprian

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Sunny, Kieran and Mary,


Since it is the great fast it seems appropriate to mention that Saint Mary of Egypt was a rather severe monastic. But the intention was not to neglect or abuse the body as she ate what the desert provided. Our bodies or anyone's body aka temple is not to be abused by anyone for any reason. Undistracted prayer is most important and sought after, so concerns for the things of the body are lessened. Even when the monks of older days chained themselves up such things had been done to stay awake in prayer as they understood that at different hours of the night different demons might have warred with them while sleeping. Hence attentiveness and prayer was more important than sleep etc.

In the Orthodox Church flagellantism and such things, movements of public mortification or other types of related displays are not considered right practices. In fact Kieran, the Orthodox Church does see many problems with the ways of Saint Francis. An article called, A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov can be read online which may be of some help in understanding our differences. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

The woman who drank the bowl of pus was with the Latin's, Father Averky mentioned her several years ago on this forum rightly mentioning that such things are not of God.

I have not read the account of the monk whose toenails grew through his shoes, I suspect that his body was found many years after he reposed. It is not uncommon for the hair and nails on the toes and fingers to continue to grow after death.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[John Charmley]

Dear Cyprian,

I don't think we should ignore what you say at all - it seems wise and thoughtful; context is, indeed all. We should be as wary of making adverse judgements as we are in emulation. God calls us all in different ways, and we must beware of presumption on our part.

There is a long and honourable tradition of asceticism; no doubt to those not called to a particular vocation some things may appear odd - but what business is it of ours to comment adversely?

That is not to say that there are not examples of false asceticism - all holy things have their satanic imitator that would deceive the people of God if that were possible, and we are told that 'by their fruits shall ye know them.'

So let us heed your words, and ponder these things.

In Christ,

John

[Mary]

Dear Sunny, Kieran and Mary,


Since it is the great fast it seems appropriate to mention that Saint Mary of Egypt was a rather severe monastic. But the intention was not to neglect or abuse the body as she ate what the desert provided. Our bodies or anyone's body aka temple is not to be abused by anyone for any reason. Undistracted prayer is most important and sought after, so concerns for the things of the body are lessened. Even when the monks of older days chained themselves up such things had been done to stay awake in prayer as they understood that at different hours of the night different demons might have warred with them while sleeping. Hence attentiveness and prayer was more important than sleep etc.
In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

When I said I'd be happy to starve to death, I didn't mean that in a self abusive way. I was, infact, thinking of St Mary, who didn't eat a whole lot - and focused on praying and repenting. In fact, if I did find myself not eating at all, but not replacing it with prayer and repentence, that would be a certain sign to me that I am outside of God's will.

I haven't yet read anything on the Orthodox view of flagellantism and other such things, but if I were to deliberately abuse my body to show repentance, I would feel like I'm taking things into my own hands, and, in a way, saying that God is being too easy on me, so I'm going to make myself worthy of His attention. There isn't anything I can do to earn God's mercy or even deserving of an audience with Him. If I need to be in physical pain, I'm sure God will find a way of giving me some illness that causes pain. If I am to starve to death, it would have to be through a situation where no food is available - like a famine. It would even be wrong of me to go to a place where there is a famine, just so I could starve... Or cause a riot so I could get a beating! =)

In Christ,
Mary

[Sunny]

Forgive me,
I wanted to clarify about the monk that was found after death with his toenails through his shoes. In this same article there was a comment that said that the monastic was so caught up with the Lord that he probably didn't even notice that this had happened or was happening. I did not mean to cast him in a bad light.

My question was more concerning how we are to integrate these things that we read about the monastic lifestyle into our own Orthodox life. Perhaps this is pointless pondering and trying to understand something that is too spiritual for me to understand.
I just look at that kind of life and then look around at my life and end up feeling very confused. (Which is a frequent state for me-I guess).
I ask forgiveness from all for bringing this topic up and for any negative effect this may have had on anyone.
Sunny

[John Charmley]

Dear Sunny,

Please do not worry, I don't think your posts can possibly have upset anyone - they are so self-evidently the product of a genuine attempt to understand.

Perhaps those of us not so called cannot understand; perhaps understanding in our sense is irrelevant.

On the other hand, there are occasions when one cannot help but wonder where the inspiration to some forms of asceticism actually comes from. There was a recent, and widely reported case, of a Romanian nun who died after an attempted exorcism. She had been tied and chained to a cross and denied food and water during the exorcism and subsequently died. The story is on line at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm

Now, I know this is not asceticism as such, but it comes along the same train of thought. I feel certain someone will respond by saying this was a western plot, western misreporting, and the Romanian priest was a very holy man, and they may even agree with his reported statement that 'God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil,'. It is exactly that attitude towards some of the more extreme forms of asceticism that seems to be a trifle worrying.

As Matthew reminds us, our body is the temple of the spirit, and just as we should not abuse it in lust and lasciviousness, nor should we in asceticism; there is something about the religious temperament which instinctively understands the first part of that, but which totally fails to see the second. Was it the Manichean heresy which preached that losing oneself in lust and giving oneself over to carnal delights was a form of asceticism?

Our Lord seems to have set us an example to follow, and most of us find that quite hard enough to imitate. Those who are called by Him to the higher asceticism command enormous respect, but unless we are so called, let us admire those who are, and get on with bearing the cross of our daily life. After all, sometimes, there may be as much struggle in being a good husband or wife, a good father or mother, a good employee or employer, and walking in His way amidst the temptations of this world, as there is in retiring to a monastery and struggling with the temptations of the solitary life.

We all come to Him and serve Him in the way He calls us; through prayer, through worship, through repentance we attune ourselves to Him and to the sound of His voice. Upon that we must all act.

In Christ,

John

[Paul Cowan]

Dear John:

You said:

There is a long and honourable tradition of asceticism; no doubt to those not called to a particular vocation some things may appear odd - but what business is it of ours to comment adversely?

This is even in scripture. John 21:19-22. Jesus tells His disciples to "follow Me". Peter turns and sees St. John and says "what about this man?" Jesus said what is that to you? You follow Me."

Does this not say we are to follow Christ and NOT look at our brothers path? Just as in fasting we are to look at our own plate. Whatever severe form of ascetisism one might be performing, "what is that to you?" should stand in our mind at all times. What might be sever for one might be child's play for another yet scandalize a child in Christ.

We all have to be careful to hide our ascetism as the Holy fathers did under their clothing for none to see as Christ says in Matthew 6:17. "But when you fast, annoint your head and wash your face"...

We also have to be careful to place ourselves under a wise spiritual father that will dictate to us our limits and knows more than we how much or how little to pray, fast, sleep, eat, etc....I violated this very ideal when I started the thread, How do I not run out of material. Please forgive my foolishness. Your posts in that thread quickly made me realize how tooo much I was trying to undertake on my own power.

in love,
Paul

[Kieran P.]

Dear Sunny, Kieran and Mary,


In the Orthodox Church flagellantism and such things, movements of public mortification or other types of related displays are not considered right practices. In fact Kieran, the Orthodox Church does see many problems with the ways of Saint Francis. An article called, A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov can be read online which may be of some help in understanding our differences. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Hiya Matthew,

I'd read that article some years ago and thought is was so unfair that it was almost tantamount to racism. The great gist of the criticism of St Francis was that he was too expressive and "in love", like - say - an Italian, whereas the great saint of the east - St Seraphim - was more austere and silently ascetic, like a phlegmatic, pragmatic Russian.

It accused St Francis of prelest, although it quotes him (non-stop) out of context. There can barely have been a more wretched and humble soul in existence. Yet St Seraphim's claim that he'd save people's souls even from beyond the grave didn't recieve any such criticisms.

For me, I recognise they take different approaches and come from different traditions and different parts of the world with two differing temperaments...and yet uniquely, they clearly have one source for their holiness and that's the call of Christ. This is a miracle which is unique to our faith. No matter if we're men, women, Icelandic or African, academic or wild, we can all be lights from the one prism - Our Lord.

Elsewhere, by the way, I've read Orthodox views towards St Francis which are both favourable and inspirational to anyone who wishes to give it all up and become a "holy fool".

By the way, I read the article originally because St Seraphim is my favourite saint of the eastern churches. I've read his 'Little Russian Philokalia' and just last wek gave it to my spiritual director, who was quite impressed.

God bless and take care!

[Andrew]

My spiritual father has told me, "Read the fathers, and then forget what you have read!" This doesn't mean disregard what they say; it means to go to them for inspiration and guidance in repentance, but realize your own level, so to speak. We are far, far, far from these righteous ones. But we can take baby steps into the Kingdom of Heaven. We might not be so rapt in ceaseless pray that we forget about our toenails, but we can cut down on entertaintment, vanity, extra expenses, and whatnot and focus upon the heart and His Presence. We can carry a little chotki in our pocket... when speaking with others and thinking we have something clever to say, we can intentionally hold our tounge; if we have a certain food we really really enjoy, we can give it away to someone else; if we want to do something when with friends or family, we can intentionally not do it and instead secretly subordinate ourselves to the will of another... we can deny ourselves in minor ways and gain the grace of God.

[Andrew]

Hiya Matthew,

I'd read that article some years ago and thought is was so unfair that it was almost tantamount to racism. The great gist of the criticism of St Francis was that he was too expressive and "in love", like - say - an Italian, whereas the great saint of the east - St Seraphim - was more austere and silently ascetic, like a phlegmatic, pragmatic Russian.

It accused St Francis of prelest, although it quotes him (non-stop) out of context. There can barely have been a more wretched and humble soul in existence. Yet St Seraphim's claim that he'd save people's souls even from beyond the grave didn't recieve any such criticisms.

For me, I recognise they take different approaches and come from different traditions and different parts of the world with two differing temperaments...and yet uniquely, they clearly have one source for their holiness and that's the call of Christ. This is a miracle which is unique to our faith. No matter if we're men, women, Icelandic or African, academic or wild, we can all be lights from the one prism - Our Lord.

Elsewhere, by the way, I've read Orthodox views towards St Francis which are both favourable and inspirational to anyone who wishes to give it all up and become a "holy fool".

By the way, I read the article originally because St Seraphim is my favourite saint of the eastern churches. I've read his 'Little Russian Philokalia' and just last wek gave it to my spiritual director, who was quite impressed.

God bless and take care!

the traditional Orthodox critique of the spirituality of Francis doesn't have much to do with his temperment. We have saints who were mad with divine eros towards God, like Saint Symeon the New Theologian, Elder Porphyrios of blessed memory, and thousands of others. What we Orthodox have a problem with is the imaginative devotions used by Western mystics. Desiring to see visions of God, imagining God in the mind, and attempting to enter into ecstasies are extremely dangerous and lead directly into prelest. All must approach God in the heart, freeing the mind of all images, thoughts, concepts, etc., in repentance. This is the way of asceticism. If God chooses to reveal himself as blessed light to us who dwell in darkness, then so be it. Come Lord Jesus! But if he chooses not to, we cannot force him. We can labor and he will grant us grace, but we desire not to see visions of God; we desire to see our sins.

[Kieran P.]

Hi Andrew,

Then it seems that the Orthodox are judging western prayer on what you see occur externally. We don't desire "to see visions of God, imagining God in the mind, and attempt[ing] to enter into ecstasies".

But we do worship with our whole self. We bring ourselves to Christ in trust and penitence, without fear, and also based purely upon scripture and church dogma and guidance. We are not encouraged to fantasise in any way which encourages delusion. Our spirituality is different to the easts, but no less ascetic. We could just as easily say that eastern asceticism is more akin to yoga, emptying the mind and so forth. This would also be an erroneous judgement based upon the externals. Into an empty mind, any form of delusion may also enter.

All must approach God in the heart, freeing the mind of all images, thoughts, concepts, etc., in repentance. This is the way of asceticism.

This is a way of asceticism, but obviously not the only one. Also bear in mind, the western Church is filled with many different strains of spirituality. It can't be only confined to rosaries and divino lectio (sp?).

As for St Francis, there has never been a more penitent soul in history. I'd recommend that you familiarise yourself with some of his writings and his life, and also the effect he has had down the ages.

I've never heard of any Catholics who scrunch their eyes shut tight and try to summon up an image of God, or demand to see Him! If we could see Him in such a way, I might get black eyes from all the clenching and the scrunching!

God bless and keep well..

[John Charmley]

Dear Kieran, Dear Andrew,

One of the things that comes through your interesting discussion is, yet again, the great value of this site in allowing us to discover what it is the other actually believes and practices - rather than the distorted version we so often ingest from various sources which may have their own bias.

None of us can say there is only one mode of asceticism without being prideful; those whom God calls in this way, He calls as He wishes.

In so far as there is an ascesis of everyday life, it still seems to me that we are all called to practice self-discipline, self-denial and restraint; try being married for any length of time without practising these things - or try rearing children without them. So much of our Christian literature is written by those who have not had to exercise asceticism in these every day directions.

As Christians we are all called to repentance and to follow Him; as one with much to repent, I find an ascetical discipline in walking in His way amidst the distractions of work and family; it is quite sufficient of a challenge for my undeveloped self to cope with.

In Christ,

John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John and Kieran,

the great value of this site in allowing us to discover what it is the other actually believes and practices - rather than the distorted version we so often ingest from various sources which may have their own bias.

Actually John for me the above is not an accurate statement but rather an advancement of something that we have been hearing very strongly in the past ten years or so, namely we really believe the same things if the Eastern Orthodox would only but see it.

In the Orthodox Church there no different spiritualities as there is only one way and truth, one Christ, one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. An Orthodox Christian can recognize the same Orthodox Christian spirituality whether it is a Russian Saint, Greek, or from a cave somewhere.

Recently I heard a panel of 5 Franciscan teaching theologians speaking about lent. They had mentioned many things, too many of which simply in truth are not the same as what the Orthodox Church teaches. They presented what they actually believe and practice which was and is a very distorted version of many things. They had been the source of those distortions in a very public way. What they presented is what their order and the Latin church teaches through that order.

There is no question that the imagination is often called upon in the Latin church, this can be seen very clearly in the stations of the cross meditations.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Kieran P.]

Hi Matthew,

It would be helpful if you quoted the Franciscans or cited a link so we could see what you mean.

As for different spiritualities in the western Church, there can be as many as there are people! Yet the source and destination of all Church activity is the same. And all prayer and worship should be accompanied by a sound knowledge of the doctrine and teachings of the church.

As for imagination in the Stations of the Cross, we don't imagine what isn't there. We bring our being to prayer and try to comprehend through grace the sacrifice on the cross. But we don't fantasise or 'pretend' or make-believe. It isn't that sort of thing at all.

It would be just as simple for us to state that eastern practices are far too subjective and vague, yet I'm sure if they're explained clearly, they can be reconciled with proper spiritual practices. I've read books on the Jesus Prayer which speak of deification in a way which is so unclear as to sound pantheistic! But of course, I realise this isn't what's meant and so can give the benefit of the doubt.

God bless and keep well...

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

The statement that:

In Orthodox Church there no different spiritualities as there is only one way and truth, one Christ, one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. An Orthodox Christian can recognize the same Orthodox Christian spirituality whether it is a Russian Saint, Greek, or from a cave somewhere.

possibly goes towards the point I was making. For my part I lack an understanding of either Orthodox or western spirituality that is comprehensive enough to sustain the line you take so firmly; I accept that you say it is so, but am uncertain that I grasp the totality of what you might mean by spirituality in the sense you employ it.

If it is, as this might be taken to imply, that there is one way, His way, one truth, Him, and one light, that of the Triune God, I suspect we all agree; I don't see my Catholic friends taking a different line.

I take your view:

Actually John for me the above is not an accurate statement but rather an advancement of something that we have been hearing very strongly in the past ten years or so, namely we really believe the same things if the Eastern Orthodox would only but see it.

but that is not what I think I am saying. But I think I am saying that there is no harm in exploring what the limits of common belief might be; that way we have a clearer idea of what divides us. As things are, there are many instances on this site of folks claiming that someone else believes 'x' or practices 'y', which then meet with refutation from someone from that church.

I am well aware, of course, that there is only one Church, as I am of the fact that more than one set of people lay claim to it; but a discussion of that is, I think, off limits, and rightly so, since this site does not exist to explore that matter. What people believe in faith is respected by me; no one died and elected me the arbiter of other peoples' souls - and I am profoundly grateful for it, too.

It might help if, as Kieran said, you could say a little more about what you think the difference is, since he does not think this business about 'imagination' quite catches it.

In Christ,

John