Articles of Monasticism, Eldership & Hesychasm

News about traditional Orthodox monastics and how these monks and nuns are living out their vocations in monasteries and convents. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.

Moderator: Mark Templet

Post Reply
User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

The Angelic Path

Post by Kollyvas »

http://www.roca.org/OA/70/70m.htm

Orthodox America


The Angelic Path


(Third and Concluding Part)

(Part 1) (Part 2)

The Monastic Rule

Code: Select all

   The Rule or "Typicon" governing Orthodox monastic life is based upon that of St. Basil the Great (d. 379), which he synthesized from the tradition of the early Desert Fathers. This Rule was later adapted by various great fathers of monasticism throughout the centuries: St. Sabbas the Sanctified in the 5th century, St. John Climacus in the 6th century, St. Theodore the Studite at the end of the 8th century, and others. It likewise provided the foundation for the great Athonite tradition which evolved in the 10th - 14th centuries, and the revival of monasticism in Russia and Moldavia in the late 18th century under the inspiration of St. Paisius Velichkovsky. Today St. Basil's Rule remains an important part of the spiritual tradition of the Orthodox Church.

   The monastic Rule is too complex to be expounded here in any detail. Basically, its purpose is to safeguard the monk in his daily life, helping him, through obedience, to keep unceasing vigil within his soul and thereby guiding him into a union of heart and spirit through which is acquired, as far as this is possible in this world, union with God.

   Effort without discipline leads nowhere. It is only by patient and deliberate striving that the soul can hope to perfect itself and come closer to God. Therefore, the keeping of the monastic Rule is very important, whether it concerns the eremitic or the cenobitic life, and the monastic benefits from it to the degree that he or she is obedient to its precepts. Of necessity, the Rule is more complex for the cenobitic life where it must regulate the services read in common as well as order a community life with all the different characters and diverse backgrounds of the individuals gathered under the same roof.

   A monastery or convent is a community of monks or nuns living under a common rule and governed by an abbot (abbess)or superior chosen from among the professed monks. He rules like a loving father over his children, often assisted by a council of monks to whom he delegates certain responsibilities.

   Monks work for their livelihood and the common upkeep of the monastery--in the fields and gardens, painting and carving icons, making church vestments, translating or writing and printing books on the spiritual life... Apart from its life of prayer, which remains at all times its essential focus, a monastery may harbor--as circumstances dictate--the sick, the aged, the orphaned and homeless, or perform any work of Christian charity. It is customary for a monastery to have a guest house in which the pilgrim can stay for the first three nights free of charge. Paying guests may also be taken. Although Orthodox monks are not cloistered, as monastics are in some Western orders, monks and visitors only mix at certain times and in designated places. The great schema monks lead a more strictly secluded life.

The Elder or "Starets"

Code: Select all

   We shall briefly describe here the position of elder ("starets" in Russian) which, although rarely encountered today, is frequently mentioned in Orthodox literature. Properly understood, eldership is not a position or rank but a gift granted by God to those of exceptional spiritual caliber and therefore not limited necessarily to monks. Eldership cannot be taken upon oneself; an elder is one recognized by others as possessing outstanding spiritual discernment and wisdom, someone to whom both monastics and lay people come for guidance. The elder, or eldress, must not be confused with the hermit, although frequently an elder will have spent time in the eremitic life before blossoming forth with the gift of eldership.

The Monastic's Service to the World

Monks are often accused of egotism because they concentrate upon the salvation of their own souls. This is putting the accent in the wrong place: the monk seeks the ways of perfection, directing all his strength towards following Christ. The monk's ideal is entirely to forget himself, to "lose his life," and to truly worship God and love Him with all his heart and all his soul and all his mind, and his neighbor as himself (Matt. 22:37).

Code: Select all

    But where does this "angelic life," as monasticism is called (by virtue of its aspiration to imitate the angels who are always praising and magnifying God), touch the outside world, the earth, the earthy?

     In many ways. A monastery is primarily a center of prayer, and prayer is something the world has always needed, never more so than today when people are so busy and find it difficult to give proper time to prayer. The monk prays not only for himself but for everybody, living and dead. Just as a soldier is a specialist in war, the monk is a specialist in prayer. Therefore, as V. Lossky writes: "the spiritual workof a monk living in a community or a hermit withdrawn from the world, retains all its worth for the entire universe even though it remains hidden from the sight of all."

    The monastery gate is open wide to all man's needs, ready with comfort and sustenance-both spiritual and physical--for anyone who may knock at its door, saint or sinner. The monk sees in every man the image of Him Who said: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me" (Matt. 25:40).

    The man of the world may look upon the man of the cloister with misgiving, somehow feeling him to be a living reproach to worldliness, an unnatural man, almost inhuman. This is far from true. The monk is simply a man who has laid all aside, completely and for good, to follow Christ wherever He may lead.  

(Text from a translation of the Monastery of the Veil, France)


Switch to: Home Page Orthodox America Issue Number Authors Editorials Book Reviews Lives of the Saints Lessons from the Fathers Spiritual Heroes Icons of the Mother of God Spiritual Life Orthodox Family Special Articles Pastoral Commentary Suffering Russian Land Scripture Commentary Journey to Orthodoxy Cults and Sects What's New on our web page Contact us

Search Orthodox America On-line
Subscribe (and order back issues) to Orthodox America
Order Books from Orthodox America
If you note problems with this site, please contact the Webmaster
© 1998-2000 by Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society
For More edifying Orthodox Material, visit The Cathedral Church of St. John the Baptist

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Spiritual Guides In The Orthodox Church

Post by Kollyvas »

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/or ... guide.html

Formatting notes: This is the format for quotations. — Endnotes/footnotes appear in this format. — More information.


Bishop Kallistos (Ware)

The Spiritual Guide In Orthodox Christianity

More important than all possible books
If we are climbing a mountain for the first time, we need to follow a known route; and we also need to have with us, as companion and guide, someone who has been up before and is familiar with the way. To serve as such a companion and guide is precisely the role of the "abba" or spiritual father — of the one whom the Greeks call geron or geronta and the Russians starets, a title which in both languages means "old man" or "elder."1

The importance of obedience to a geron is underlined from the very first beginnings of Eastern Christian monasticism. It is clearly evident, for example, in the sayings attributed to St Antony of Egypt:

I know of monks who fell after much toil and lapsed into madness, because they trusted in their own works and did not give due heed to the commandment of him who says, "Ask your father, and he will tell you" (Dent 32:7). If possible, for every step that a monk takes, for every drop of water that he drinks in his cell, he should entrust the decision to the old men, to avoid making some mistake in what he does.2

The need for spiritual guidance is a master-theme throughout the Apophthegmata or Sayings of the Desert Fathers:

The old men used to say: "If you see a young monk climbing up to heaven by his own will, grasp him by the feet and throw him down, for this is to his profit... If a person places his faith in someone else and surrenders himself to the other in full submission, he has no need to attend to the commandment of God, but he needs only to entrust his entire will into the hands of his father. Then he will be blameless before God, for God requires nothing from beginners so much as self-stripping through obedience."3

This figure of the starets, so prominent in the first generations of Egyptian monasticism, has retained its full significance up to the present day in Orthodox Christendom. "There is one thing more important than all possible books and ideas," states a Russian layman of the nineteenth century, the Slavophil Ivan Kireyevsky, "and that is the example of an Orthodox starets, before whom you can lay each of your thoughts and from whom you can hear, not a more or less valuable private opinion, but the judgement of the Holy Fathers. God be praised, such startsi have not yet disappeared from our Russia."4 And a priest of the Russian emigration in the twentieth century, Father Alexander Elchaninov, writes: "Their field of action is unlimited... they are undoubtedly saints, recognized as such by the people. I feel that in our tragic days it is precisely through this means that faith will survive and be strengthened in our country."5

The spiritual guide as a "charismatic "figure
What entitles someone to act as spiritual guide? How and by whom is he or she appointed?

To this there is a simple answer. The elder or starets is essentially a "charismatic" and prophetic figure, accredited for her or his task by the direct action of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual guides are ordained, not by human hands, but by the hand of God. They are an expression of the Church as "event" or "happening," rather than of the Church as institution.6

There is, however, no sharp line of demarcation between the prophetic and the institutional elements in the life of the Church; each grows out of the other and is intertwined with it. The ministry of the starets, itself charismatic, is related to a clearly-defined function within the institutional framework of the Church, the office of priest-confessor. In the Orthodox tradition, the right to hear confessions is not granted automatically at ordination. Before acting as confessor, a priest requires authorization from his bishop; and in the Greek Church, at any rate, only a minority of the clergy are so authorized. Yet, although the sacrament of confession is certainly an appropriate occasion for spiritual direction, the ministry of the starets is by no means identical with that of a confessor. The starets gives advice, not only at confession, but on many other occasions. Moreover, while the confessor must always be a priest, the starets may be a simple monk, not in holy orders, or even a layman; the ministry of eldership may also be exercised by a nun or a laywoman, for in the Orthodox tradition there are spiritual mothers as well as spiritual fathers.7 The starets, whether ordained or lay, frequently speaks with an insight and authority that only a very few confessor-priests possess.

If, however, spiritual fathers or mothers are not appointed by an official act of the hierarchy, how then do they come to embark on their ministry? Sometimes an existing starets will designate his own successor. In this way, at certain monastic centers such as Optino in nineteenth-century Russia, there was established an "apostolic succession" of spiritual masters. In other cases, the starets emerges spontaneously, without any act of external authorization. As Elchaninov says, they are "recognized as such by the people." Within the continuing life of the Christian community, it becomes plain to the believing people of God-which is the true guardian of Holy Tradition — that this or that person has the gift of spiritual fatherhood or motherhood. Then, in a free and informal fashion, others begin to come to him or her for advice and direction.

It will be noted that the initiative comes, as a rule, not from the master but from the disciples. It would be perilously presumptuous for someone to say in his own heart or to others, "Come and submit yourselves to me; I am a starets, I have the grace of the Spirit." What happens, rather, is that — without any claims being made by the person himself — others approach him, seeking his advice or asking to live permanently under his care. At first, he will probably send them away, telling them to consult someone else. Eventually the moment comes when he no longer sends them away but accepts their coming to him as a disclosure of the will of God. Thus it is his spiritual children who reveal the elder to himself.

The figure of the geronta or starets illustrates the two interpenetrating levels on which the earthly Church exists and functions. On the one hand, there is the external, official and hierarchical level, with its geographical organization into dioceses and parishes, its great centers — Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, and Canterbury — and its "apostolic succession" of bishops. On the other hand, there is the inner, spiritual and "charismatic" level, to which the startsi primarily belong. Here the chief centers are, for the most part, not the great primatial and metropolitan sees but certain remote hermitages, in which there shine forth a few personalities richly endowed with spiritual gifts. Most startsi have possessed no exalted status in the formal hierarchy of the Church; yet the influence of a simple priest-monk such as St Seraphim of Sarov exceeded that of any patriarch or bishop in nineteenth-century Orthodoxy. In this fashion, alongside the apostolic succession of the episcopate, there exists also the apostolic succession of the saints and Spirit-bearers. Both types of succession are essential for the true functioning of the Body of Christ, and it is through their interaction that the life of the Church on earth is accomplished.

Flight and return: the preparation of the spiritual guide
Although spiritual guides are not ordained or appointed for their task, it is certainly necessary that they should be prepared. There is a classic pattern for this preparation, a movement of flight and return such as may be clearly discerned in the lives of St Antony the Great and St Seraphim of Sarov, to take but two examples separated from each other by fifteen centuries.

St Antony's life falls sharply into two halves, with his fifty-fifth year as the watershed. The years from early manhood to the age of fifty-five were his time of preparation, spent in an ever-increasing seclusion from the world as he withdrew further and further into the desert. According to his biographer, he eventually passed twenty years in an abandoned fort, meeting no one whatsoever. When he had reached the age of fifty-five, his friends could contain their curiosity no longer, and broke down the entrance. St Antony came out and, for the remaining half century of his long life, without abandoning the life of a hermit he made himself freely available to others, acting as "a physician given by God to Egypt," to use the phrase of his biographer, St Athanasius. "He was beloved by all," Athanasius states, "and all desired to have him as their father."' Observe that the transition from enclosed anchorite to spiritual father came about, not through any initiative on St Antony's part, but through the action of others. It should also be noted that Antony was a lay monk, never ordained to the priesthood.

St Seraphim followed a comparable path. After sixteen years spent in the ordinary life of the monastic community, as novice, professed monk, deacon, and priest, he withdrew for twenty years of solitude, first as a hermit in the forest and then for the last three years, after being ordered by the abbot to return to the monastery, as a recluse enclosed in his cell. During part of these twenty years he met occasional visitors, but at other times his isolation was almost total: at the start of his time in the forest he spent a thousand days on the stump of a tree and the thousand nights of those days on a rock, devoting himself to unceasing prayer; for the last three years in his forest hut he spoke to no one; and during his three years of enclosure in the monastery he did not go to church even to receive Holy Communion, but the sacrament was brought to him at the door of his cell. Then in 1813, at the age of fifty-three, he ended his seclusion, devoting the last two decades of his life to the ministry of starchestvo (eldership) and receiving all who came to him, whether monks or laypeople. He did nothing to advertise himself or to call others to him; it was the others who took the initiative in approaching him, but when they came — sometimes hundreds or even thousands in a single day — he did not send them empty away.9

Without this intense ascetic preparation, without this radical flight into solitude, would St Antony or St Seraphim have been able to guide and inspire their contemporaries to the same degree? Not that they withdrew with the specific and conscious purpose of becoming the teachers and guides of others. They fled, not in order to prepare themselves for any such task, but simply out of a consuming desire to be alone with God. God accepted their love, but then He sent them back as instruments of healing in the world from which they had withdrawn. Even had He never sent them back, their flight would still have been supremely creative and valuable to society; for nuns and monks help the world not primarily by anything that they do and say but by what they are, by the state of unceasing prayer which — for some at any rate among them — has become identical with their innermost being. Had St Antony and St Seraphim done nothing but pray in solitude they would still have been serving others to the highest degree. As things turned out, however, God ordained that they should also serve them in a more direct fashion. Yet this direct and visible service was not their original aim: it was a side-effect that they had not themselves intended or initially envisaged, an outward consequence of the inner and invisible service which they were already rendering through their prayer.

"Acquire a peaceful spirit," said St Seraphim, "and then thousands of others around you will be saved."10 Such is the pattern of spiritual fatherhood or motherhood. Establish yourself in God; then you can bring others to His presence. Each must learn to be alone, and so in the stillness of their own heart they will begin to hear the wordless speech of the Spirit, thus discovering the truth about themselves and about God. Then their word to others will be a word of power, because it is a word out of silence.

Shaped in this way by the encounter with God in solitude, the starets is able to heal by his very presence. He guides and forms others, not primarily by words of advice but by his companionship, by the living and specific example which he sets. He teaches as much by his stillness as by his speech, by his very presence as much as by any word of counsel that he utters. That is why Abba Pambo saw no reason to say anything to Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria: "If he isn't edified by my silence," observed the old man, "then he won't be edified by my words."11 A story with the same moral is told of St Antony. "It was the custom of three Fathers to visit the Blessed Antony once each year, and two of them used to ask him questions about their thoughts (logismoi) and the salvation of their soul; but the third remained completely silent, without putting any questions. After a long while, Abba Antony said to him, 'See, you have been in the habit of coming to me all this time, and yet you do not ask me any questions.' And the other replied, 'Father, it is enough for me just to look at you.'"12

The real journey of the starets, however, is not spatially into the desert, but spiritually into the heart. External solitude, however valuable, is not indispensable, and a person may learn to stand alone before God while yet continuing to pursue a life of active service in the midst of society. The story of the Alexandrian doctor who was the equal of St Antony, and who all day long sang the Thrice-Holy Hymn with the angels,13 shows us that the mystical and "angelic" life is possible in the city as well as the desert. Unceasing prayer of the heart is no monopoly of the eremitic solitary; for people such as the Alexandrian doctor have accomplished the inner journey without severing their outward links with the community.

This pattern of flight and return, then, is not to be understood in too literal and clear-cut a way. The two stages need not necessarily be expressed in external and spatial terms; and by the same token the flight and return are not always sharply distinguished in temporal sequence. Take, for example, the case of St Seraphim's younger contemporary, St Ignaty Brianchaninov. Trained originally as an army officer, he then withdrew to a monastery; but after only four years in monasticism he was appointed at the early age of twenty-six to take charge of a busy and influential community close to the heart of St Petersburg. After twenty-four years as abbot, he was consecrated bishop. Four years later he resigned, to spend the remaining six years of his life as a hermit. Thus in St Ignaty's case a long period of active pastoral work and spiritual fatherhood preceded the period of his anachoretic seclusion. When he was originally made abbot, he must surely have felt ill-prepared. His secret withdrawal into the heart was undertaken continuously during the many years in which he administered a monastery and a diocese; but it did not receive an exterior expression until the very end of his life. The life of St Theophan the Recluse followed the same pattern: first an active pastorate, then the hermit's cell.14

St Ignaty's career may serve as a paradigm to many of us at the present time, even though we are conscious of falling far short of his level of spiritual achievement. Under the pressure of outward circumstances and probably without clearly realizing what is happening to us, we assume the responsibilities of teaching, preaching and pastoral counseling, while lacking any deep knowledge of the desert and its creative silence. But through instructing others we ourselves perhaps begin to learn. Slowly we recognize our powerlessness to heal the wounds of humanity solely through philanthropic programs, common sense and psychoanalysis. Our self-dependence is broken down, we appreciate our own inadequacy, and so we start to understand what Christ meant by the "one thing that is necessary" (Lk 10:42). That is the moment when a person may by the divine mercy start to advance along the path of the starets. Through our pastoral experience, through our anguish over the pain of others, we are brought to undertake the journey inwards and to seek the hidden treasure-house of the Kingdom, where alone a genuine solution to the world's problems can be found. No doubt few if any among us would venture to think of ourselves as a starets in the full sense, but provided we seek with humble sincerity to enter into the "secret chamber" of our heart, we can all share to some degree in the grace of spiritual fatherhood or motherhood. Perhaps we shall never outwardly lead the life of a monastic recluse or a hermit — that often rests with circumstances outside our own control — but what is supremely important is that each should see the need to be a hermit of the heart.

The three gifts of the spiritual guide
Three gifts in particular distinguish the spiritual guide. The first is insight and discernment (diakrisis), the ability to perceive intuitively the secrets of another's heart, to understand the hidden depths of which the other does not speak and is usually unaware. The spiritual father or mother penetrates beneath the conventional gestures and subterfuges whereby we conceal our true personality from others and from ourselves; and, beyond all these trivialities, she or he comes to grips with the unique person made in the image and likeness of God. This power of discernment is spiritual rather than psychic; it is not simply a happy knack of hitting the nail on the head, nor yet a kind of extra-sensory perception or clairvoyance, but it is the fruit of grace, presupposing concentrated prayer and an' unremitting ascetic struggle.

With this gift of insight there goes the ability to use words with power. As each person comes before him, the starets or geronta knows immediately and specifically what it is that this particular individual needs to hear. Today, by virtue of computers and photocopying machines, we are inundated with words as never before in human history; but alas! for the most part these are conspicuously not words uttered with power.15 The starets, on the other hand, uses few words, and sometimes none at all; but, by these few words or by his silence, he is often able to alter the entire direction of another's life. At Bethany Christ used three words only: "Lazarus, come out" (Jn 11:43); and yet these three words, spoken with power, were sufficient to bring the dead back to life. In an age when language has been shamefully trivialized, it is vital to rediscover the power of the word; and this means rediscovering the nature of silence, not just as a pause in the midst of our talk, but as one of the primary realities of existence. Most teachers and preachers surely talk far too much; the true starets is distinguished by an austere economy of language.16

Yet, for a word to possess power, it is necessary that there should be not only one who speaks with the genuine authority of personal experience, but also one who listens with attention and eagerness. If we question a geronta out of idle curiosity, it is likely that we will receive little benefit; but if we approach him with ardent faith and deep hunger, the word that we hear may transfigure our whole being. The words of the startsi are for the most part simple in verbal expression and devoid of literary artifice; to those who read them in a superficial way, they will seem jejune and banal.

The elder's gift of insight is exercised primarily through the practice known as the "disclosure of thoughts" (logismoi). In early Eastern monasticism the young monk used to go daily to his spiritual father and lay before him all the thoughts which had come to him during the day. This disclosure of thoughts includes far more than a confession of sins, since the novice also speaks of those ideas and impulses which may seem innocent to him, but in which the spiritual father may discern secret dangers or significant signs. Confession is retrospective, dealing with sins that have already occurred; the disclosure of thoughts, on the other hand, is prophylactic, for it lays bare our logismoi before they have led to sin and so deprives them of their power to harm. The purpose of the disclosure is not juridical, to secure absolution from guilt, but its aim is self-knowledge, that we may see ourselves as we truly are.

The principle underlying the disclosure of thoughts is clearly summed up in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers: "If unclean thoughts trouble you, do not hide them but tell them at once to your spiritual father and condemn them. The more we conceal our thoughts, the more they multiply and gain strength... [But] once an evil thought is revealed, it is immediately dissipated... Whoever discloses his thoughts is quickly healed."17

If we cannot or will not bring out into the open a logismos, a secret fantasy or fear or temptation, then it possesses power over us. But if with God's help and with the assistance of our spiritual guide, we bring the thought out from the darkness into the light, its influence begins to wither away. Having exposed the logismos, we are then in a position to deal with it, and the process of healing can begin. The method proposed here by the early monks has interesting similarities with the techniques of modern psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. But the early monks had worked out this method fifteen centuries before Freud and Jung! There is, of course, an important difference: the early monks did not employ the notion of the unconscious in the way that modern psychology does, even though they recognized that with our conscious understanding we are usually aware of only a small part of ourselves.

Endowed as he is with discernment, the spiritual father does not merely wait for a person to reveal himself, but takes the initiative in revealing to the other many thoughts of which the other is not yet aware. When people came to St Seraphim of Sarov, he often answered their difficulties before they had time to put their perplexities before him. On many occasions the answer at first seemed quite irrelevant, and even absurd and irresponsible; for what St Seraphim answered was not the question his visitor had consciously in mind, but the one which the visitor ought to have been asking. In all this St Seraphim relied on the inner light of the Holy Spirit. He found it important, he explained, not to work out in advance what he was going to say; in that case, his words would represent merely his own human judgment, which might well be in error, and not the judgment of God.18

In St Seraphim's eyes, the relationship between starets and spiritual child is stronger even than death, and he therefore urged his children to continue their disclosure of thoughts to him after his departure to the next life. These are the words which, by his own instructions, were written on his tomb: "When I am no more, come to me at my grave, and the more often, the better. Whatever weighs on your soul, whatever may have happened to you, whatever sorrows you have, come to me as if I were alive and, kneeling on the ground, cast all your bitterness upon my grave. Tell me everything and I shall listen to you, and all the sorrow will fly away from you. And as you spoke to me when I was alive, do so now. For to you I am alive, and I shall be forever."19

The second gift of the spiritual father or mother is the ability to love others and to make others' sufferings their own. Of one elder mentioned in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, it is briefly and simply recorded: "He possessed love, and many came to him."20 He possessed love — this is indispensable in all spiritual motherhood and fatherhood. Insight into the secrets of people's hearts, if devoid of loving compassion, would not be creative but destructive; if we cannot love others, we will have little power to heal them.

Loving others involves suffering with and for them; such is the literal sense of the word "compassion." "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2): the spiritual father or mother is the one par excellence who bears the burdens of others. "A starets," writes Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, "is one who takes your soul, your will into his soul and into his will."21 It is not enough for him merely to offer advice in a detached way. He is also required to take up the soul of his spiritual children into his own soul, their life into his life. It is his task to pray for them, and his constant intercession on their behalf is more important to them than any words of counsel.22 It is his task likewise to assume their sorrows and their sins, to take their guilt upon himself, and to answer for them at the Last Judgment. St Barsanuphius of Gaza insists to his spiritual children, "As God Himself knows, there is not a second or an hour when I do not have you in my mind and in my prayers... I take upon myself the sentence of condemnation against you, and by the grace of Christ, I will not abandon you, either in this age or in the Age to come."23 In the words of Dostoevsky's starets Zosima, "There is only one way of salvation, and that is to make yourself responsible for the sins of all ... to make yourself responsible in all sincerity for everything and everyone."24 The ability of the elder to support and strengthen others is measured exactly by the extent of his willingness to adopt this way of salvation.

Yet the relation between the spiritual father and his children is not one-sided. Though he takes the burden of their guilt upon himself and answers for them before God, he cannot do this effectively unless they themselves are struggling wholeheartedly on their own behalf. Once a brother came to St Antony of Egypt and said: "Pray for me." But the old man replied: "Neither will I take pity on you nor will God, unless you make some effort of your own."25

When considering the love of the guide for the disciple, it is important to give full meaning to the word "father" or "mother" in the title "spiritual father" or "spiritual mother." As the father and mother in an ordinary family are joined to their offspring in mutual love, so it should also be within the "charismatic" family of the elder. Needless to say, since the bond between elder and disciples is a relationship not according to the flesh but in the Holy Spirit, the wellspring of human affection, without being ruthlessly repressed, has to be transfigured; and this transfiguration may sometimes take forms which, to an outside observer, seem somewhat inhuman. It is recounted, for example, how a young monk looked after his elder, who was gravely ill, for twelve years without interruption. Never once in that period did his elder thank him or so much as speak one word of kindness to him. Only on his death-bed did the old man remark to the assembled brethren, "He is an angel and not a man."26 Such stories are valuable as an indication of the need for spiritual detachment, but they are hardly typical. An uncompromising suppression of all outward tokens of affection is not characteristic of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, still less of the two Old Men of Gaza, Barsanuphius and John.

A third gift of the spiritual father and mother is the power to transform the human environment, both the material and the non-material. The gift of healing, possessed by so many of the startsi, is one aspect of this power. More generally, the starets helps his disciples to perceive the world as God created it and as God desires it once more to be. The true elder is one who discerns the universal presence of the Creator throughout creation, and assists others to discern it likewise. He brings to pass, in himself and in others, the transformation of which William Blake speaks: "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite."27 For the one who dwells in God, there is nothing mean and trivial: he or she sees everything in the light of Mount Tabor. A momentary glimpse of what this signifies is provided in the account by Nicolas Motovilov of his conversation with St Seraphim of Sarov, when Nicolas saw the face of the starets shining with the brilliancy of the mid-day sun, while the blinding light radiating form his body illuminated the snow-covered trees of the forest glade around them.28

Obedience and freedom
Such are, by God's grace, the gifts of the starets. But what of the spiritual child? How does he or she contribute to the mutual relationship between guide and disciple?

Briefly, what the disciple offers is sincere and willing; obedience. As a classic example, there is the story in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers about the monk who was told to plant a dry stick in the sand and to water it daily. So distant was the spring from his cell that he had to leave in the evening to fetch the water and he only returned in the following morning. For three years he patiently fulfilled his abba's command. At the end of this period, the stick suddenly put forth leaves and bore fruit. The abba picked the fruit, took it to the church, and invited the monks to eat, saying, "Take and eat the fruit of obedience."29

Another example of obedience is the monk Mark, who while copying a manuscript was suddenly called by his abba; so immediate was his response that he did not even complete the circle of the letter O that he was writing. On another occasion, as they walked together, his abba saw a small pig; testing Mark, he said, "Do you see that buffalo, my child?" "Yes, father," replied Mark. "And you see how elegant its horns are?" "Yes, father," he answered once more without demur.30 Abba Joseph of Panepho, following a similar policy, tested the obedience of his disciples by assigning paradoxical and even scandalous tasks, and only if they complied would he then give them sensible commands.31 Another geron instructed his disciple to steal things from the cells of the brethren;32 yet another told his disciple (who had not been entirely truthful with him) to throw his son into the furnace.33

At this point it is surely necessary to state clearly certain serious objections. Stories of the kind that we have just reported are likely to make a deeply ambivalent impression upon a modern reader. Do they not describe the kind of behavior that we may perhaps reluctantly admire but would scarcely wish to imitate? What has happened, we may ask with some indignation, to "the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom 8:21)?

Few of us would doubt the value of seeking guidance from someone else, whether man or woman, who has a greater experience than we do of the spiritual way. But should such a person be treated as an infallible oracle, whose every word is to be obeyed without any further discussion? To interpret the mutual relationship between the disciple and the spiritual mother or father in such a manner as this seems dangerous for both of them. It reduces the disciple to an infantile and even subhuman level, depriving her or him of all power of judgment and moral choice; and it encourages the teacher to claim an authority which belongs to God alone. Earlier we quoted the statement from the Sayings of the Desert Fathers that someone under obedience to an elder "has no need to attend to the commandment of God."34 But is such an abdication of responsibility desirable? Should the geronta be allowed to usurp the place of Christ?

In response, it needs to be said first of all that "charismatic" elders, such as St Anthony the Great or St Seraphim of Sarov, have always been exceedingly rare. The kind of relationship that they had with their disciples, whether monastic or lay, has never been the standard pattern in the Orthodox tradition. The great startsi, whether of the past or of the present day, do indeed constitute a guiding light, a supreme point of reference; but they are the exception, not the norm.

In the second place, there is clearly a difference between monastics, who have taken a special vow of obedience, and lay people who are living in the "world." (Even in the case of monastics, there are extremely few communities where the ministry of eldership is to be found in its full form, as described in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers or as practiced in nineteenth-century Optino.) A contemporary Russian priest, Father Alexander Men — himself much revered as a spiritual father before his tragic and untimely death at unknown hands in 1990 — has wisely insisted that monastic observances cannot be transferred wholesale to parish life:

We often think that the relation of spiritual child to spiritual father requires that the former be always obedient to the latter. In reality, this principle is an essential part of the monastic life. A monk promises to be obedient, to do whatever his spiritual father requires. A parish priest cannot impose such a model on lay people and cannot arrogate to himself the right to give peremptory orders. He must be happy recalling the Church's rules, orienting his parishioner's lives, and helping them in their inner struggles.35

Yet, when full allowance has been made for these two points, there are three further things that need to be said if a text such as the Sayings of the Desert Fathers or a figure such as Starets Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov are to be interpreted aright. First, the obedience offered by the spiritual child to the abba is not forced but willing and voluntary. It is the task of the starets to take up our will into his will, but he can only do this if by our own free choice we place it in his hands. He does not break our will, but accepts it from us as a gift. A submission that is forced and involuntary is obviously devoid of moral value; the starets asks of each one that we offer to God our heart, not our external actions. Even in a monastic context the obedience is voluntary, as is vividly emphasized at the rite of monastic profession: only after the candidate has three times placed the scissors in the abbot's hand does the latter proceed to tonsure him.

This voluntary offering of our freedom, however, even in a monastery, is obviously something that cannot be made once and for all, by a single gesture. We are called to take up our cross daily (Lk 9:23). There has to he a continual offering, extending over our whole life; our growth in Christ is measured precisely by the increasing degree of our self-giving. Our freedom must be offered anew each day and each hour, in constantly varying ways; and this means that the relation between starets and disciple is not static but dynamic, not unchanging but infinitely diverse. Each day and each hour, under the guidance of his abba, the disciple will face new situations, calling for a different response, a new kind of self-giving.

In the second place, the relation between starets and spiritual child, as we have already noted, is not one-sided, but mutual. Just as the starets enables the disciples to see themselves as they truly are, so it is the disciples who reveal the starets to himself. In most instances, someone does not realize that he is called to be a starets until others come to him and insist on placing themselves under his guidance. This reciprocity continues throughout the relationship between the two. The spiritual father does not possess an exhaustive program, neatlyworked out in advance and imposed in the same manner upon everyone. On the contrary, if he is a true starets, he will have a different word for each; he proceeds on the basis not of abstract rules but of concrete human situations. He and his disciple enter each situation together, neither of them knowing beforehand exactly what the outcome will be, but each waiting for the illumination of the Spirit. Both of them, the spiritual father as well as the disciple, have to learn as they go.

The mutuality of their relationship is indicated by stories in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers where an unworthy abba is saved through the patience and humility of his disciple. A brother, for example, has an elder who is given to drunkenness, and is sorely tempted to leave him; but, instead of doing so, he remains faithfully with his abba until the latter is eventually brought to repentance. As the narrator comments, "Sometimes it is the young who guide their elders to life."36 The disciple may be called to give as well as to receive; the teacher may often learn from his pupils. As the Talmud records, "Rabbi Hanina used to say, 'Much have I learnt from my teachers, more from my fellow-students, but from my pupils most of all.'"37

In reality, however, the relationship is not two-sided but triangular, for in addition to the abba and his disciple there is also a third partner, God. Our Lord insisted that we should call no one "father," for we have only one Father, who is in heaven (Mt 13:8-10). The abba is not an inerrant judge or an ultimate court of appeal, but a fellow-servant of the living God; not a tyrant, but a guide and companion on the way. The only true "spiritual director," in the fullest sense of the word, is the Holy Spirit.

This brings us to the third point. In the Orthodox tradition at its best, spiritual guides have always sought to avoid any kind of constraint and spiritual violence in their relations with their disciples. If, under the guidance of the Spirit, they speak and act with authority, it is with the authority of humble love. Anxious to avoid all mechanical constraint, they may sometimes refuse to provide their disciples with a rule of life, a set of external commands to be applied automatically. In the words of a contemporary Romanian monk, the spiritual father is "not a legislator but a mystagogue."38 He guides others, not by imposing rules, but by sharing his life with them. A monk told Abba Poemen, "Some brethren have come to live with me; do you want me to give them orders?" "No," said the old man. "But, Father," the monk persisted, "they themselves want me to give them orders." "No," repeated Poemen, "be an example to them but not a lawgiver."39 The same moral emerges from a story told by Isaac the Priest. As a young man, he remained first with Abba Kronios and then with Abba Theodore of Pherme; but neither of them told him what to do. Isaac complained to the other monks and they came and remonstrated with Theodore. "If he wishes," Theodore replied eventually, "let him do what he sees me doing."40 When Barsanuphius was asked to supply a detailed rule of life, he declined, saying: "I do not want you to be under the law, but under grace." And in other letters he wrote: "You know that we have never imposed chains upon anyone... Do not force people's free will, but sow in hope; for our Lord did not compel anyone, but He preached the good news, and those who wished hearkened to Him."41

Do not force people's free will. The task of our spiritual father is not to destroy our freedom, but to assist us to see the truth for ourselves; not to suppress our personality, but to enable us to discover our own true self, to grow to full maturity and to become what we really are. If on occasion the spiritual father requires an implicit and seemingly "blind" obedience from his disciple, this is never done as an end in itself, nor with a view to enslaving him. The purpose of this kind of "shock treatment" is simply to deliver the disciple from his false and illusory "self," so that he may enter into true liberty; obedience is in this way the door to freedom. The spiritual father does not impose his personal ideas and devotions, but he helps the disciple to find his own special vocation. In the words of a seventeenth-century Benedictine, Dom Augustine Baker: "The director is not to teach his own way, nor indeed any determinate way of prayer, but to instruct his disciples how they may themselves find out the way proper for them... In a word, he is only God's usher, and must lead souls in God's way, and not his own."42

Such was also the approach of Father Alexander Men. In the words of his biographer Yves Hamant, "Father Alexander wanted to lead each person to the point of deciding for himself; he did not want to order or to impose. He compared his role to that of a midwife who is present only to help the mother give birth herself to her baby. One of his friends wrote that Father Alexander was 'above us yet right beside us.'"43

In the last resort, then, what the spiritual mother or father gives to the disciple is not a code of written or oral regulations, not a set of techniques for meditation, but a personal relationship. Within this personal relationship the abba grows and changes as well as the disciple, for God is constantly directing them both. The abba may on occasion provide his disciple with detailed verbal instructions, with precise answers to specific questions. On other occasions he may fail to give any answer at all, either because he thinks that the question does not need an answer, or because he himself does not yet know what the answer should be. But these answers — or this failure to answer — are always given within the framework of a personal relationship. Many things cannot be said in words, but can only be conveyed through a direct personal encounter. As the Hasidic master Rabbi Jacob Yitzhak affirmed, "The way cannot be learned out of a book, or from hearsay, but can only be communicated from person to person."44

Here we touch on the most important point of all, and that is the personalism that inspires the encounter between disciple and spiritual guide. This personal contact protects the disciple against rigid legalism, against slavish submission to the letter of the law. He learns the way, not through external conformity to written rules, but through seeing a human face and hearing a living voice. In this way the spiritual mother or father is the guardian of evangelical freedom.

In the absence of a starets
And what are we to do, if we cannot find a spiritual guide? For, as we have noted, guides such as St Antony or St Seraphim are few and far between.

We may turn, in the first place, to books. Writing in fifteenth-century Russia St Nil Sorsky laments the extreme scarcity of qualified spiritual directors; yet how much more frequent they must have been in his day than in ours! Search diligently, he urges, for a sure and trustworthy guide. Then he continues: "However, if such a teacher cannot be found, then the Holy Fathers order us to turn to the Scriptures and listen to our Lord Himself speaking."45 Since the testimony of Scripture should never be isolated from the continuing witness of the Spirit in the life of the Church, we may add that the inquirer will also want to read the works of the Fathers, and above all the Philokalia. But there is an evident danger here. The starets adapts his guidance to the inner state of each; books offer the same advice to everyone. How are we to discern whether or not a particular text is applicable to our own situation? Even if we cannot find a spiritual father in the full sense, we should at least try to find someone more experienced than ourselves, able to guide us in our reading.

It is possible to learn also from visiting places where divine grace has been exceptionally manifest and where, in T S. Eliot's phrase, "prayer has been valid." Before making a major decision, and in the absence of other guidance, many Orthodox Christians will go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Mount Athos, to some monastery or the shrine of a saint, where they will pray for illumination. This is the way in which I myself have reached certain of the more difficult decisions in my life.

Thirdly, we can learn from religious communities with an established tradition of the spiritual life. In the absence of a personal teacher, the monastic environment can itself serve as abba; we can receive our formation from the ordered sequence of the daily program, with its periods of liturgical and silent prayer, with its balance of manual labor, study and recreation. This seems to have been the chief way in which St Seraphim of Sarov gained his spiritual training. A well-organized monastery embodies, in an accessible and living form, the inherited wisdom of many startsi. Not only monks but those who come as visitors, remaining for a longer or shorter period, can be formed and guided by the experience of community life.

It is indeed no coincidence that, when the kind of "charismatic" spiritual fatherhood that we have been describing first emerged in fourth century Egypt, this was not within the fully organized communities under St Pachomius, but among the hermits and in the semi-eremitic milieu of Nitria and Scetis. In the Pachomian koinonia, spiritual direction was provided by Pachomius himself, by the superiors of each monastery, and by the heads of individual "houses" within the monastery. The Rule of St Benedict also envisages the abbot as spiritual father, and there is virtually no provision for further direction of a more "charismatic" type.46 In time, it is true, the cenobitic communities incorporated many of the traditions of spiritual fatherhood as developed among the hermits, but the need for those traditions has always been less intensely felt in the cenobia, precisely because direction is provided by the corporate life pursued under the guidance of the monastic rule.

Finally, before leaving this question of the absence of a starets, it is important for us to emphasize the extreme flexibility in the relationship between spiritual guide and disciple. Some may see their spiritual guide daily or even hourly, praying, eating and working with him, perhaps sharing the same cell, as often happened in the Egyptian desert. Others may see him only once a month or once a year; others, again, may visit an abba on but a single occasion in their entire life, yet this will be sufficient to set them on the right path. There are, furthermore, many different types of spiritual father or mother; few will be wonder-workers like St Seraphim of Sarov. There are numerous priests and laypeople who, while lacking the more spectacular endowments of the famous startsi, are certainly able to provide others with the guidance that they require. Furthermore, let us never forget that, alongside spiritual fatherhood and motherhood, there is also spiritual brotherhood and sisterhood. At school or university we often learn more from our fellow students than from our teachers; and the same may happen also in our life of prayer and inner exploration.

When people imagine that they have failed in their search for a guide, often this is because they expect him or her to be of a particular type; they want a St Seraphim, and so they close their eyes to the guides whom God is actually sending to them. Often their supposed problems are not so very complicated, and in reality they already know in their own heart what the answer is. But they do not like the answer, because it involves patient and sustained effort on their part; and so they look for a deus ex machina who, by a single miraculous word, will suddenly make everything easy. Such people need to be helped to an understanding of the true nature of spiritual direction.

Contemporary examples
In conclusion, I wish to recall two elders of our own day, whom I have had the privilege and happiness of knowing personally. The first is Father Amphilochios (✝1970), at one time abbot of the Monastery of St John on the Island of Patmos, and subsequently geronta to a community of nuns which he had founded not far from the Monastery. What most distinguished his character was his gentleness, his humor, the warmth of his affection, and his sense of tranquil yet triumphant joy. His smile was full of love, but devoid of all sentimentality. Life in Christ, as he understood it, is not a heavy yoke, a burden to be carried with sullen resignation, but a personal relationship to be pursued with eagerness of heart. He was firmly opposed to all spiritual violence and cruelty. It was typical that, as he lay dying and took leave of the nuns under his care, he should urge the abbess not to be too severe on them: "They have left everything to come here, they must not be unhappy."47

Two things in particular I recall about him. The first was his love of nature and, more especially, of trees. "Do you know," he used to say, "that God gave us one more commandment, which is not recorded in Scripture? It is the commandment Love the trees." Whoever does not love trees, he was convinced, does not love Christ. When hearing the confessions of the local farmers, he assigned to them as a penance (epitimion) the task of planting a tree; and through his influence many hill-sides of Patmos, which once were barren rock, are now green with foliage every summer.48

A second thing that stands out in my memory is the counsel which he gave me when, as a newly-ordained priest, the time had come for me to return from Patmos to Oxford, where I was to begin teaching in the university. He himself had never visited the west, but he had a shrewd perception of the situation of Orthodoxy in the diaspora. "Do not be afraid," he insisted. Do not be afraid because of your Orthodoxy, he told me; do not be afraid because, as an Orthodox in the west, you will be often isolated and always in a small minority. Do not make compromises but do not attack other Christians; do not be either defensive or aggressive; simply be yourself.

My second example of a twentieth-century starets known to me personally is St John Maximovitch (✝1966), Russian bishop in Shanghai, then in Western Europe, and finally in San Francisco. Little more than a dwarf in height, with tangled hair and beard, and with an impediment in his speech, at first sight he seemed to possess more than a touch of the "fool in Christ." From the time of his profession as a monk, except when ill he did not lie down on a bed; he went on working and praying all night, snatching his sleep at odd moments in the twenty-four hours. He wandered barefoot through the streets of Paris, and once he celebrated a memorial service in the port of Marseilles on the exact spot where King Alexander of Yugoslavia had been assassinated, in the middle of the road among the tram lines. Punctuality had little meaning for him. Baffled by his behavior, the more conventional among his flock judged him unsuited for the public position and the administrative work of a bishop. But, if unpredictable, he was also practical and realistic. With his total disregard of normal formalities he succeeded where others, relying on worldly influence and expertise, had failed entirely — as when, against all hope and in the teeth of the "quota" system, he secured the admission of thousands of homeless Russian refugees to the USA.

In private conversation he was abrupt yet kindly. He quickly won the confidence of small children. Particularly striking was the intensity of his intercessory prayer. It was his practice, whenever possible, to celebrate the Divine Liturgy daily, and the service often took twice the normal space of time, such was the multitude of those whom he commemorated individually by name. As he prayed for them, they were never mere entries on a list, but always persons. One story that I was told is typical. It was his custom each year to visit Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, NY. As he made his departure after one such visit, a monk gave him a slip of paper with four names of those who were gravely ill. St John received thousands upon thousands of such requests for prayer in the course of each year. On his return to the monastery some twelve months later, at once he beckoned to the monk and, much to the latter's surprise, from the depths of his cassock St John produced the identical slip of paper, now crumpled and tattered. "I have been praying for your friends," he said, "but two of them" — he pointed to their names — "are now dead, while the other two have recovered." And so indeed it was.

Even at a distance he shared in the concerns of his spiritual children. One of them, Father (later Archbishop) Jacob, superior of a small Orthodox monastery in Holland, was sitting at a late hour in his room, unable to sleep from anxiety over the financial and other problems which faced him. In the middle of the night the phone rang; it was St John, speaking from several hundred miles away. He had telephoned to say that it was time for Father Jacob to go to bed: "Go to sleep now, what you are asking of God will certainly be all right."49

Such is the role of the spiritual father. As St Barsanuphius expressed it, "I care for you more than you care for yourself."


Notes
On spiritual fatherhood in the Christian East, the standard work is by Irénée Hausherr, Direction spirituelle en Orient autrefois, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 144 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1955); English translation, Spiritual Direction in the Early Christian East, Cistercian Studies Series 116 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1990). Consult also I. Hadot, "The Spiritual Guide," in A. H. Armstrong (ed.), Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), 436-59; Graham Gould, The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), especially 26-87; Stephan B. Clark, Unordained Elders and Renewal Communities (New York/Paramus/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1976); John Chryssavgis, Ascent to Heaven. The Theology of the Human Person according to Saint John of the Ladder (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1989), 211-30; H. J. M. Turner, St. Symeon the New Theologian and Spiritual Fatherhood (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990). For a comparison between Climacus and Symeon, see my introduction to the English translation of Hausherr, Spiritual Direction, vii-xxxiii. On the Russian tradition, consult J. B. Dunlop, Staretz Amvrosy: Model for Dostoevsky's Staretz Zossima (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972); I. de Beausobre (ed.), Macarius, Starets of Optino: Russian Letters of Direction 1834-1860 (Westminster: Dacre, 1944); Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), Saint Silouan the Athonite (Tolleshunt Knights: Monastery of Saint John the Baptist, 1991). For modern Greek examples, see Elder Paisios of Mount Athos, Athonite Fathers and Athonite Matters (Thessalonica: Holy Convent of the Evangelist John the Theologian, Souroti, 1999). On Romania, see [Hiermonk Seraphim Rose], Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky (Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1976); Romul Joantā (now Metropolitan Seraphim of Germany and Central Europe), Roumanie: tradition et culture hésychastes, Spiritualité orientale 46 (Bégrolles: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1987); English translation, Romania: Its Hesychast Tradition and Culture (Wildwood, CA: St Xenia Skete, 1992).
AP, alphabetical collection, Antony 37, 38 (PG 65:88B); tr. Ward, 8-9 (the translation needs correcting).
AP, anonymous collection, 244, 290: ed. Nau, ROC 14 (1909), 364, 376; tr. Ward, Wisdom, §§112,158 (34, 45).
Cited by Ivan Tschetwerikow, in Metropolitan Seraphim (ed.), L'Eglise Orthodoxe (Paris: Payot, 1952), 219.
Elchaninov, The Diary of a Russian Priest, 54.
I use "charismatic" in the restricted sense customarily given to it by contemporary writers. But if that word indicates (as properly it should) someone who has received the gifts or charismata of Holy Spirit, then the ministerial priest, ordained through the episcopal laying on of hands, is as genuinely "charismatic" as one who speaks with tongues.
In the alphabetical collection of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, alongside 127 "abbas" there are three "ammas" or spiritual mothers: the women are in a minority, but they have their place in the Gerontikon. See Sister Benedicta Ward, "`Apophthegmata Matrum,", Studia Patristica 16:2, Texte and Untersuchungen 129 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1985), 63-66; Joseph M. Soler, "Les Mères du désert et la maternité spirituelle," Collectanea Cisterciensia 48 (1986), 235-50.
Life of Antony, 87 and 81; tr. Gregg, 94, 90.
I follow here the generally accepted chronology of St Seraphim's life. But there is evidence to suggest that he may have begun his ministry as starets at a much earlier point, before his withdrawal into the forest in 1794. Yet even so the pattern of flight and return still holds good in Seraphim's case, at any rate in general terms; for, prior to 1813, his ministry as starets was restricted and sometimes totally interrupted. See Vsévolod Rochcau, Saint Séraphim: Sarov et Divéyevo. Études et Documents, Spiritualité Orientale 45 (Bégrolles: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1987), 53-84.
Archimandrite Lazarus Moore, St. Seraphim of Sarov, 126.
AP, alphabetical collection, Theophilus 2; quoted above, 89.
AP, alphabetical collection, Antony 27 (84D); tr. Ward, Sayings, 7.
AP, alphabetical collection, Antony 24 (84B); see above, 86.
On Ignaty and Theophan, see the introduction to Igumen Chariton, The Art of Prayer, 11-15. St Tikhon of Zadonsk is yet another example of one who, after many years of active pastorate, only became a recluse at the end of his life.
If the chairmen of committees and others in seats of authority were forced to write out personally in longhand everything they wanted to communicate, might they not choose their words with greater care?
See the perceptive discussion in Douglas Burton-Christie, The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), especially chapter 5; and compare Max Picard, The World of Silence (London: Flarvill Press, n.d.).
For the Greek text of this apophthegma, see Evergetinos 1.20.11, ed. Victor Matthaiou, 4 vols. (Athens: Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior at Kronize Kouvara, 1957-66), 1:168-9; French translation in Lucien Regnault (ed.), Les Sentences des Pères du Désert, serie des anonymes (Sablé-sur-Sarthe/Bégrolles: Solesmes/Bellefontainc, 1985), 227.
Archimandrite Lazarus Moore, St. Seraphim of Sarov, 217-20.
Op. cit., 436-7.
AP, alphabetical collection, Poemen 8 (321C); tr. Ward Sayings, 167.
The Brothers Karamazov, tr. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (New York: Vintage Classics, 1991), 27.
See, for example, the story in AP, anonymous collection 293: ed. Nau, ROC 14 (1909), 377; tr. Ward, Wisdom, §16o (45-46). The monk is delivered as soon as he says, "Lord, by the prayers of my father, save me in this hour."
Questions andAnswers, ed. Schoinas §§208, 239; tr. Regnault and Lemaire, §§113, 239. On the spiritual father as burden-bearer, see above, 119-20, especially the quotations from Barsanuphius. In general, the 850 questions and answers that make up the Book of Barsanuphius and John show us, with a vividness not to be found in any other ancient source, exactly how the ministry of pastoral guidance was exercised in the Christian East.
The Brothers Karamazov, tr. Pevear and Volokhonsky, 320.
AP, alphabetical collection, Antony 16 (8oc); tr. Ward, Sayings, 4.
AP, alphabetical collection, John the Theban 1 (240A); tr. Ward, Sayings, 109.
"The Marriage of Heaven and Hell," in Geoffrey Keynes (ed.), Poetry and Prose of William Blake (London: Nonesuch Press, 1948), 187.
"A Wonderful Revelation to the World," in Archimandrite Lazarus Moore, St. Seraphim of Sarov, 197.
AP, alphabetical collection, John the Dwarf i (2o4e); tr. Ward, Sayings, 85-86.
AP, alphabetical collection, Mark the Disciple of Silvanus 1, 2 (293D-296B); tr., 145-46.
Ibid., Joseph of Panepho 5 (229BC); tr., 103.
Ibid., Saio i (420AB); tr., 229. The geron subsequently returned the things to their rightful owners.
AP, anonymous series 295: ed. Nau, ROC14 (1909), 378; tr. Ward, Wisdom, §162,(47). Miraculously the child was preserved unharmed. For a parallel story, see AP, alphabetical collection, Sisoes 10 (394C-396A); tr. Ward, Sayings, 214; and compare Abraham and Isaac (Gen 22).
See above, first section.
Quoted in Yves Harnant, Alexander Men: A Witness for Contemporary Russia (Torrance, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1995), 124.
AP, anonymous collection 340: ed. Nau, ROC 17 (1912), 295; tr. Ward, Wisdom, §209 (56-57).
C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe (ed.), A Rabbinic Anthology (London: Macmillan,1938), §494.
Father André Scrima, "La tradition du père spirituel dans l'Église d'Orient," Hermès, 1967, No. 4, 83.
AP, alphabetical collection, Poemen 174 (364C); tr. Ward, Sayings, 191.
Ibid., Isaac the Priest 2 (224CD); tr., 99-100.
Questions and Answers, §§25,51,35.
Quoted by Thomas Merton, Spiritual Direction and Meditation (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1960), 12.
Alexander Men, 124.
Buber, Tales of the Hasidim: The Early Masters, 256.
"The Monastic Rule," in G. P. Fedotov, A Treasury of Russian Spirituality (London: Sheed & Ward, 1950), 95-96.
Except that in the Rule, §46, it is said that monks may confess their sins in confidence, not necessarily to the abbot, but to one of the senior monks possessing spiritual gifts (tantum abbati, aut spiritalibus senioribus).
See I. Gorainoff, "Holy Men of Patmos," Sobornost 6:5 (1912), 341-44.
See my lecture, Through the Creation to the Creator, 5.
Bishop Sawa of Edmonton, Blessed John: The Chronicle of the Veneration of Archbishop John Maximovich (Platina, CA: Saint Heman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1979),104; Father Seraphim Rose and Abbot Herman, Blessed John the Wonderworker. A Preliminary Account of the Life and Miracles of Archbishop John Maximovitch, 3rd edn. (Plating, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1987), 163. I heard the story from Father Jacob himself.

Validated as Strict HTML 4.01 — before Geocities got hold of it!

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Orthodox Christian Monasticism

Post by Kollyvas »

http://www.apostle1.com/10-26-20050-ort ... ticism.htm

Orthodox Christian Monasticism
...

The innermost spiritual sense of Orthodox Monasticism is revealed in joyful mourning. This paradoxical phrase denotes a spiritual state in which a monk in his prayer grieves for the sins of the world at at the same time experiences the regenerating spiritual joy of Christ's forgiveness and resurrection. A monk dies in order to live, he forgets himself in order to find his real self in God, he becomes ignorant of worldly knowledge in order to attain real spiritual wisdom which is given only to the humble ones. (Ed.)

With the development of monasticism in the Church there appeared a peculiar way of life, which however did not proclaim a new morality. The Church does not have one set of moral rules for the laity and another for monks, nor does it divide the faithful into classes according to their obligations towards God. The Christian life is the same for everyone. All Christians have in common that "their being and name is from Christ" 1. This means that the true Christian must ground his life and conduct in Christ, something which is hard to achieve in the world.

What is difficult in the world is approached with dedication in the monastic life. In his spiritual life the monk simply tries to do what every Christian should try to do: to live according to God's commandments. The fundamental principles of monasticism are not different from those of the lives of all the faithful. This is especially apparent in the history of the early Church, before monasticism appeared.

In the tradition of the Church there is a clear preference for celibacy as opposed to the married state. This stance is not of course hostile to marriage, which is recognized as a profound mystery 2, but simply indicates the practical obstacles marriage puts in the way of the pursuit of the spiritual life. For this reason, from the earliest days of Christianity many of the faithful chose celibacy. Thus Athenagoras the Confessor in the second century wrote: "You can find many men and women who remain unmarried all their lives in the hope of coming closer to God"3.

From the very beginning the Christian life has been associated with self denial and sacrifice: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me"4. Christ calls on us to give ourselves totally to him: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"5.

Finally, fervent and unceasing prayer, obedience to the elders of the Church, brotherly love and humility, as well as all the essential virtues of the monastic life were cultivated by the members of the Church from its earliest days.

One cannot deny that the monk and the married man have different ways of life, but this does not alter their common responsibility towards God and His commandments. Every one of us has his own special gift within the one and indivisible body of Christ's Church 6. Every way of life, whether married or solitary, is equally subject to God's absolute will. Hence no way of life can be taken as an excuse for ignoring or selectively responding to Christ's call and His commandments. Both paths demand effort and determination.

St Chrysostom is particularly emphatic on this point: "You greatly delude yourself and err, if you think that one thing is demanded from the layman and another from the monk; since the difference between them is in that whether one is married or not, while in everything else they have the same responsibilities... Because all must rise to the same height; and what has turned the world upside down is that we think only the monk must live rigorously, while the rest are allowed to live a life of indolence" 7. Referring to the observance of particular commandments in the Gospels, he says: "Whoever is angry with his brother without cause, regardless of whether he is a layman or a monk, opposes God in the same way. And whoever looks at a woman lustfully, regardless of his status, commits the same sin". In general, he observes that in giving His commandments Christ does not make distinction between people: "A man is not defined by whether he is a layman or a monk, but by the way he thinks" 8.

Christ's commandments demand strictness of life that we often expect only from monks. The requirements of decent and sober behaviour, the condemnation of wealth and adoption of frugality 9, the avoidance of idle talk and the call to show selfless love are not given only for monks, but for all the faithful.

Therefore, the rejection of worldly thinking is the duty not only of monks, but of all Christians. The faithful must not have a worldly mind, but sojourn as strangers and travelers with their minds fixed on God. Their home is not on earth, but in the kingdom of heaven: "For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come" 10. The Church can be seen as a community in exodus. The world is its temporary home but the Church is bound for the kingdom of God. Just as the Israelites, freed from bondage in Egypt, journeyed towards Jerusalem through many trials and tribulations, so Christians, freed from the bondage of sin, journey through many trials and tribulations towards the kingdom of heaven.

In the early days this exodus from the world did not involve a change of place but a change of the way of life. A man does not reject God and turns towards the world physicaly but spiritually, because God was and is everywhere and fulfills everything, so in the same way the rejection of the world and turning towards God was not understood in physical sense but as a change of the way of life. This is especially clear in the lives of the early Christians. Although they lived in the world they were fully aware that they did not come from it nor did they belong to it: "In the world but not of the world". And those who lived in chastity and poverty, which became later fundamental principles of the monastic life, did not abandon the world or take to the mountains.

Physical detachment from the world helps the soul to reject the worldly way of life. Experience shows that human salvation is harder to achieve in the world. As Basil the Great points out, living among men who do not care for the strict observance of God's commandments is harmful. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer Christ's call to take up one's cross and follow Him within the bounds of worldly life. Seeing the multitude of sinners, one not only fails to see his own sins but also falls into temptation to believe that he has achieved something, because we tend to compare ourselves with those who are worse than we are. Furthermore, the hustle and bustle of everyday life distracts us from the remembrance of God. It does not only prevent us from feeling the joy of intense communion with God, but leads us to contempt and forgetfulness of the divine will.

This does not mean that detachment from the world guarantees salvation, but surely does help us a lot in our spiritual life. When someone devotes himself wholly to God and His will, nothing can stop him from being saved. St. Chrysostom says: "There is no obstacle to a worker striving for virtue, but men in office, and those who have a wife and children to look after, and servants to see to, and those in positions of authority can also take care to be virtuous"12.

Saint Simeon the New Theologian observes: "Living in a city does not prevent us from carrying out God's commandments if we are zealous, and silence and solitude are of no benefit if we are slothful and neglectful" 13. Elsewhere he says that it is possible for all, not only monks but laymen too, to "eternally and continuously repent and weep and pray to God, and by these actions to acquire all the other virtues"14.

Orthodox monasticism has always been associated with stillness or silence, which is seen primarily as an internal rather than an external state. External silence is sought in order to attain inner stillness of mind more easily. This stillness is not a kind of inertia or inaction, but awakening and activation of the spiritual life. It is intense vigilance and total devotion to God. Living in a quiet place the monk succeeds in knowing himself better, fighting his passions more deeply and purifying his heart more fully, so as to be found worthy of beholding God.

The father of St Gregory Palamas, Constantine, lived a life of stillness as a senator and member of the imperial court in Constantinople. The essence of this kind of life is detachment from worldly passions and complete devotion to God. This is why St Gregory Palamas says that salvation in Christ is possible for all: "The farmer and the leather worker and the mason and the tailor and the weaver, and in general all those who earn their living with their hands and in the sweat of their brow, who cast out of their souls the desire for wealth, fame and comfort, are indeed blessed" 15. In the same spirit St Nicolas Kavasilas observes that it is not necessary for someone to flee to the desert, eat unusual food, change his dress, ruin his health or attempt some other such thing in order to remain devoted to God 16.

The monastic life, with its physical withdrawal from the world to the desert, began about the middle of the third century. This flight of Christians to the desert was partly caused by the harsh Roman persecutions of the time. The growth of monasticism, however, which began in the time of Constantine the Great, was largely due to the refusal of many Christians to adapt to the more worldly character of the now established Church, and their desire to lead a strictly Christian life. Thus monasticism developed simultaneously in various places in the southeast Mediterranean, Egypt, Palestine, Sinai, Syria and Cyprus, and soon after reached Asia Minor and finally Europe. During the second millennium. however, Mount Athos appeared as the centre of Orthodox monasticism.

The commonest and safest form of the monastic life is the coenobitic communion. In the coenobitic monastery everything is shared: living quarters, food, work, prayer, common efforts, cares, struggles and achievements. The leader and spiritual father of the coenobium is the abbot. The exhortation to the abbot in the Charter of St Athanasius the Athonite is typical: "Take care that the brethren have everything in common. No one must own as much as a needle. Your body and soul shall be your own, and nothing else. Everything must be shared equally with love between all your spiritual children, brethren and fathers". The coenobium is the ideal Christian community, where no distinction is drawn between mine and yours, but everything is designed to cultivate a common attitude and a spirit of fraternity. In the coenobium the obedience of every monk to his abbot and his brotherhood, loving kindness, solidarity and hospitality are of the greatest importance. As St Theodore of Studium observes, the whole community of the faithful should in the final analysis be a coenobitic Church 17. Thus the monastic coenobium is the most consistent attempt to achieve this and an image of Church in small.

In its "fuga mundi", monasticism underlines the Church's position as an "anti-community" within the world, and by its intense spiritual asceticism cultivates its eschatological spirit. The monastic life is described as "the angelic state", in other words a state of life that while on earth follows the example of the life in heaven. Virginity and celibacy come within this framework, anticipating the condition of souls in the life to come, where "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" 8.

Many see celibacy as a defining characteristic of monastic life. This does not mean, however, that celibacy is the most important aspect of the monastic life: it simply gives this distinctiveness to this way of life. All the other obligations, even the other two monastic vows of obedience and poverty, essentially concern all the faithful. Needless to say, all this takes on a special form in the monastic life, but that has no bearing on the essence of the matter.

All Christians are obliged to keep the Lord's commandments, but this requires efforts. Fallen human nature, enslaved by its passions is reluctant to fulfill this obligation. It seeks pleasure and avoids the pain involved in fighting the passions and selfishness. The monastic life is so arranged as to facilitate this work. On the other hand the worldly life, particularly in our secular society, makes it harder to be an ascetic. The problem for the Christian in the world is that he is called upon to reach the same goal under adverse conditions.

The tonsure, with cutting of hair, is called a "second baptism" 19. Baptism, however, is one and the same for all members of the Church. It is participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. The tonsure does not repeat, but renews and activates the grace of the baptism. The monastic vows are essentially not different from those taken at baptism, with the exception of the vow of celibacy. Furthermore, hair is also cut during baptism.

The monastic life points the way to perfection. However, the whole Church is called to perfection. All the faithful, both laymen and monks, are called to become perfect following the divine example: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"20. But while the monk affirms the radical nature of the Christian life, the layman is content to regard it conventionally. The conventional morality of the layman on the one hand and the radical morality of the monk on the other create a dialectical differentiation that takes the form of a dialectical antithesis.

St Maximus the Confessor, in contrasting the monastic with the worldly life, observes that a layman's successes are a monk's failures, and vice versa: "The achievements of the worldly are failures for monks; and the achievements of monks are failures for the worldly. When the monk is exposed to what the world sees as success- wealth, fame, power, pleasure, good health and many children, he is destroyed. And when a worldly man finds himself in the state desired by monks—poverty, humility, weakness, self restraint, mortification and suchlike, he considers it a disaster. Indeed, in such despair many may consider hanging themselves, and some have actually done so" 21.

Of course the comparison here is between the perfect monk and the very worldly Christian. However, in more usual circumstances within the Church the same things will naturally function differently, but this difference could never reach diametrical opposition. Thus for example, wealth and fame cannot be seen as equally destructive for monks and laymen. These things are always bad for monks, because they conflict with the way of life the monks have chosen. For laymen, however, wealth and fame may be beneficial, even though they involve grave risks. The existence of the family, and of the wider secular society with its various needs and demands, not only justify but sometimes make it necessary to accumulate wealth or assume office. Those things that may unite in the world divide in the monastic life. The ultimate unifier is Christ Himself.

The Christian life does not depend only on human effort but primarily on God's grace. Ascetic exercises in all their forms and degrees aim at nothing more than preparing man to harmonise his will with that of God and receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. This harmonisation attains its highest expression and perfection in prayer. "In true prayer we enter into and dwell in the Divine Being by the power of the Holy Spirit" 22. This leads man to his archetype and makes him a true person in the likeness of his Creator.

The grace of the Christian life is not to be found in its outward forms. It is not found in ascetic exercises, fasts, vigils and mortification of the flesh. Indeed, when these excercises are practiced without discernment they become abhorrent. This repulsiveness is no longer confined to their external form but comes to characterise their inner content. They become abhorrent not only because outwardly they appear as a denial of life, contempt for material things or self-abandonment, but also because they mortify the spirit, encourage pride and cultivate self justification.

The Christian life is not a denial but an affirmation. It is not death, but life. And it is not only affirmation and life, but the only true affirmation and the only true life. It is the true affirmation because if goes beyond all possibility of denial and the only true life because it conquers death. The negative appearance of the Christian life in its outward forms is due precisely to its attempt to stand beyond all human denial. Since there is no human affirmation that does not end in denial, and no worldly life that does not end in death, the Church takes its stand and reveals its life after accepting every human denial and affirming every form of earthly death.

The power of the Christian life lies in the hope of resurrection, and the goal of ascetic striving is to partake in the resurrection. The monastic life, as the angelic and heavenly life lived in time, is the foreknowledge and foretaste of eternal life. It aim is not to cast off the human element, but clothe oneself with incorruptibility and immortality: "For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life" 23.

There are sighing and tears produced by the presence of sin, as well as the suffering to be free of the passions and regain a pure heart. These things demand ascetic struggles, and undoubtedly have a negative form, since they aim at humility. They are exhausting and painful, because they are concerned with states and habits that have become second nature. It is however precisely through this abasement, self purification, that man clears the way for God's grace to appear and to act within his heart. God does not manifest Himself to an impure heart.

Monks are the "guardians". They choose to constrain their bodily needs in order to attain the spiritual freedom offered by Christ. They tie themselves down in death's realm in order to experience more intensely the hope of the life to come. They reconcile themselves with space, where man is worn down and annihilated, feel it as their body, transform it into the Church and orientate it towards the kingdom of God.

The monk's journey to perfection is gradual and is connected with successive renunciations, which can be summarised in three. The first renunciation involves completely abandoning the world. This is not limited to things, but includes people and parents. The second is renunciation of the individual will, and the third is freedom from pride, which is identified with liberation from the sway of the world 24.

These successive renunciations have a positive, not a negative meaning. They permit a man to fully open up and be perfected "in the image and likeness" of God. When man is freed from the world and from himself, he expands without limits. He becomes a true person, which "encloses" within himself the whole of humanity as Christ himself does. That is why, on the moral plane, the Christian is called upon to love all human beings, even his enemies. Then God Himself comes and dwells within him, and the man arrives to the fullness of his theanthropic being 25. Here we can see the greatness of the human person, and can understand the superhuman struggles needed for his perfection.

The life of monasticism is life of perpetual spiritual ascent. While the world goes on its earthbound way, and the faithful with their obligations and distractions of the world try to stay within the institutional limits of the church tradition, monasticism goes to other direction and soars. It rejects any kind of compromise and seeks the absolute. It launches itself from this world and heads for the kingdom of God. This is in essence the goal of the Church itself.

In Church tradition this path is pictured as a ladder leading to heaven. Not everyone manages to reach the top of this spiritual ladder. Many are to be found on the first rungs. Others rise higher. There are also those who fall from a higher or a lower rung. The important thing is not the height reached, but the unceasing struggle to rise ever higher. Most important of all, this ascent is achieved through ever increasing humility, that is through ever increasing descent. "Keep thy mind in hell, and despair not", was the word of God to Saint Silouan of Mount Athos. When man descends into the hell of his inner struggle having God within him, then he is lifted up and finds the fullness of being 26.

At the top of this spiritual ladder are the "fools for Christ's sake", as the Apostle Paul calls himself and the other apostles 27, or "the fools for Christ's sake", who "play the madman for the love of Christ and mock the vanity of the world" 28, Seeking after glory among men, says Christ, obstructs belief in God 29. Only when man rejects pride can he defeat the world and devote himself to God 30.

In the lives of monks the Christian sees examples of men who took their Christian faith seriously and committed themselves to the path which everyone is called by Christ to follow. Not all of them attained perfection, but they all tried, and all rose to a certain height. Not all possessed the same talent, but all strove as good and faithful servants. They are not held up as examples to be imitated, especially by laymen. They are however valuable signposts on the road to perfection, which is common for all and has its climax in the perfectness of God.

Endnotes

  1. Maximos the Confessor, Mystagogia 1, PG91, 665C.
  2. See Eph. 5, 32
  3. Presbeia 33. Also see Justin, Confession 1, 15, 6.
  4. St. Mark 8, 34.
  5. St. Matthew 10, 37
  6. "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" I Cor. 7, 7
  7. Pros piston patera (To the faithful father) 3, 14, PG47, 372- 74.
  8. Ibid 373.
  9. "If we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. I Tim 6,8.
  10. Heb. 13, 14.
  11. See Oroi kata platos (Monastic rules in full) 6, PG 31, 925A.
  12. Catechism 7, 28, ed A. Wenger, "Sources Chritiennes' vol.50, Paris 21970m 0,243,
  13. Catechism 12, 132-5, ed B. Krivocheine, "Sources Chritiennes' vol.l04, Paris 1964, p.374.
  14. Catechism 5, 122-5, ed B. Knvocheine, "Sources Chritiennes". voL96, Paris 1963, p.386.
  15. Homily 15, PG151, 180 BC.
  16. See On the life in Christ 6, PG150, 660A
  17. See Letter 53,PG99, 1264CD.
  18. St. Matthew 22, 30
  19. See Service for the Little Habit. The Greater Prayer-Book, p. 192.
  20. St. Matthew 5, 48.
  21. Maximos the Confessor, On love 3,85,PG90, 1044A.
  22. Archimandrite Sophrony, Ascetic practice and theory, Essex, Eng/and 1996, p.26. 23 2 Cor. 5,4. 24 See Stage 2, PG88, 657A. For a comparison of the patristic tradition on the three stages of renunciation see the book by Archimandrite Sophrony, Asceticism and Contemptation, p.26f.
  23. See Archimandrite Sophrony, We Shall See Him as He is, Essex, England 3-1996, p.389.
  24. See Archimandrite Sophrony, Saint Silouan of Mount Athos, Essex, England 7-1995, p.572 Also Asceticism and Contemptation, p.42.
  25. 1 Cor. 4, l0
  26. The Elder Paisios, Letters, Souroti, Thessaloni 1994, p.235. 29 St. John 5, 44. 30 See Archimandrite Sophrony, Asceticism and Contemptation, pp.33-4.

Georgios I. Mantzarides Professor of the Theological School Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (abridged text from the book Images of Athos, by monk Chariton). This page was retrieved from www.archive.org after decani.yunet.com went defunct following the Kosovo conflict. This page was originally created by monks at Decani Monastery in Kosovo. It has been slightly edited for inclusion on this site....

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Orthodox Eldership: Dispassion & True Orthodox Anthropol

Post by Kollyvas »

From +Met. Hierotheos Of Nafpaktos:

http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b16.en.saint ... ite.10.htm

...Unfortunately, such views also exist today in some humanists and anthropists who exalt the human factor and human nature. There are also views today which are more anthropocentric and in that way unacceptable to orthodoxy. Man is the crown of creation, for he was created by God and is being directed towards unity with Him. Man’s centre of reference is God. When he is alienated from this centre, then man and humanism do not exist. Today people are speaking of the person and personality. But if we look at this subject without reference to God, we are making man an absolute, and we fall into anthropocentric notions. This is not unconnected with the original sin of man, who precisely wanted to become God apart from the path which God set, that is to say without the Grace of God.

St. Gregory Palamas, using a passage from St. Maximos the Confessor clearly defines and teaches that the Grace of deification is completely incomprehensible and there is no faculty in nature which can receive it, for otherwise it would not be Grace, but a manifestation of the operation of a natural capacity. God manifests Himself according to the natural capacity of each person. Deification is not a work of nature, but a gift of God which is offered to those who have the appropriate preconditions for receiving it. Thus the Grace of deification is above nature, virtue and knowledge, and naturally all such things fall short of it. Virtue and the imitation of God make a man fit for union with the Deity, "but it is through Grace that this ineffable union is accomplished". Therefore it is not by virtue that we acquire union with God, but it is accomplished through the uncreated deifying energy of God. Through deifying Grace God in His entirety penetrates the saints in their entirety, and the saints in their entirety penetrate God entirely, in the way that the soul embraces the body18.

This is genuine orthodox anthropology, which is not isolated and alienated from God. Orthodox anthropology is theanthropocentric. Therefore to refer to a good and ethical life without there being at the same time a reason for the deification of man, which is accomplished not through good and rational thoughts nor through conjectures, but through the deifying energy of God, is unorthodox and anti-traditional. And this must be said within the essential preconditions for participation in the deifying operations of God, that is to say purity of heart, illumination of the nous and deification, which are the stages of spiritual perfection, the orthodox method of devotion and the tradition.

[ BACK ]
e) Deification of the body

Barlaam, using Platonic and stoic philosophy, undervalued the human body and called dispassion of the soul the deadening of its passible aspect. It is a familiar fact that the soul has three powers: intelligence, the desiring aspect, and the incensive aspect. The desiring and incensive aspects are called the passible part of the soul. According to Platonic philosophy, both the desiring and incensive aspects entered into man with his fall from the archetype. And according to stoic philosophy, and for the Platonic as well, the salvation of man lies in the deadening of the passible aspect of the soul. This heretical asceticism is also known in neo-platonism. With this conception of things people are led into scorning and rejecting the body and all the bodily asceticisms, and discarding tears and sorrow during prayer. This constituted a naive spirituality and essentially unsettled all the foundations of man, soul and body.

In the "Hagiorite Tome" the orthodox teaching about the transformation of the passible aspect of the soul and the deification of the human body is also presented. Therefore all the energies of the soul participate in the journey towards deification, including man’s body itself.

Thus, while Barlaam, speaking of dispassion, defining it as "the habitual deadening of the passible aspect, St. Gregory defines it as "a habitual directing of energy towards higher things by completely spurning what is evil and espousing the good". So we cannot speak of deadening the passible aspect of the soul, but of its transformation; instead, that is, of functioning contrary to nature, it is necessary to function according to nature and above nature19.

Anyone who refuses to accept the orthodox view of dispassion and accepts the heretical teaching about dispassion as a deadening of the passible aspect, is essentially also refusing to accept that we can enjoy an embodied life in the age of incorruption that is to come. For if in the age to come the body is to share with the soul in all the blessings, then it is evident that in this world as well it will also share "according to its capacity in the grace mystically and ineffably bestowed by God upon the purified nous"20. In other words, deifying Grace is conveyed by the pure nous to the body as well. The body receives a sensation of divine Grace and becomes a sharer in the deifying energy of God. This is accomplished through the transformation of the passible part of the soul and not through its deadening, since in any case the passible part is common to body and soul"21. Thus asceticism, repentance, contrition, tears, and grieving are essential for the deification of man. They are not inferior to a simple happiness of the soul, they are the way and path of deification.

Therefore in godly asceticism, as it is presented by the Orthodox Tradition, the body too partakes of the Grace of God which comes to the purified nous. St. Gregory Palamas refers also to a passage in St. Diadochos of Photike which says that the nous transmits ineffable divine virtue to the body as well, whereupon the joy which is then communicated to the soul and the body is a true recalling of incorruptible life22.

While Orthodox hesychasm appears to be an abstract, unpractical and utopian state, it is in essence very practical, true and realistic, precisely because it speaks of the transformation of man’s body and, of course, of the whole man. Its veracity is seen in the bodies of the saints, which receive the deifying energies of God, and in the relics of the saints, in which the presence of the uncreated deifying energy is manifest. Moreover, the relics manifest the deification of the body as well, and this is proof of the existence of the deifying energy also in the person’s soul. Therefore we can say that a purpose and work of the Church is to make relics.

[ BACK ]
f) The experienced saints

All that we have said so far in analysing the "Hagiorite tome" shows that what is said in this declaration which we are studying is the experience of the Church of Christ. It is not a matter of ideologies and logical constructions, but true life. And there are sure "signs" and unshakeable proofs of these things which are being said. These "signs" are the saints, who have received knowledge of these truths from experience.

For an ending this declaration offers its witness of the truth: "These things we have been taught by the Scriptures, these things we have received from our fathers, these things we have come to know from our own small experience. Having seen them set down in the treatise of our brother, the most reverend Hieromonk Gregory, In defence of those who devoutly practise a life of stillness, and acknowledging them to be fully consistent with the traditions of the saints, we have adjoined our signature for the assurance of those who read this present document"23.

This testimony is very important, for it shows clearly that the truth of the Gospel and of the holy Fathers is confirmed by the experience of the contemporary saints. Therefore in every epoch there is confirmation of the revelation, since in each period of time there live men who share the same revealing experience...

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

To Be Transformed By Vision Of The Uncreated Light I

Post by Kollyvas »

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/axismundi/2 ... _part1.php
To Be Transformed by a Vision of Uncreated Light:
A Survey on the Influence of the Existential Spirituality of Hesychasm on Eastern Orthodox History
(Part 1)
-by Gregory K. Hillis
1st year, Graduate Studies
McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario
January 10, 2002

Then Father Seraphim gripped me firmly by the shoulders and said: "My friend, both of us, at this moment, are in the Holy Spirit, you and I. Why won't you look at me?"
"I can't look at you, Father, because the light flashing from your eyes and face is brighter than the sun and I'm dazzled!"
"Don't be afraid, friend of God, you yourself are shining just like I am; you too are now in the fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see me as you do...The fact that I am a monk and you are a layman doesn't make any difference.[1]

  • From a conversation with Russian hesychast St. Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833)

Introduction: Setting the Stage for the Development of Hesychasm
At the bottom of Mt. Sinai sits the oldest continuously inhabited Christian monastery in existence - St. Catherine's. In the apse of the monastery's church is a famous sixth century mosaic which depicts the Transfiguration of Christ on Mt. Tabor (Matthew 17.1-9). At the centre of this mosaic is the transfigured Jesus, resplendent in white. Around him are Moses and Elijah, as well as the three disciples who witnessed this event. However, these three disciples are not depicted as being mere witnesses to the Transfiguration; they are also participants. For the light which emanates from Christ's transfigured body also transfigures the disciples watching him - they reflect, and are transformed by, the divine light that is shining all around them.

Perhaps no other piece of artwork so encapsulates the existential element of Orthodox theology as does this mosaic. Orthodoxy is known for the emphasis it places on the authority of the dogmatic assertions formulated by the seven ecumenical councils, which took place between 325-787 C.E.. Through the authority of these councils, Orthodoxy is furnished with official dogma which lays stress on a Trinitarian understanding of God, and on an understanding of Jesus Christ as being fully divine and fully human. These dogmatic formulations are of the utmost importance to Orthodoxy, but it would be a mistake to simply view Orthodox theology as a set of dogmatic assertions which one is to believe. Rather, Orthodox theology is lived and experienced. Russian theologian Vladimir Lossky illustrates this idea most clearly when he states that "the eastern tradition has never made a sharp distinction between mysticism and theology; between personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma affirmed by the Church."[2] In other words, Orthodox theology is inherently and ideally existential.

Central to this existential understanding of theology is the Orthodox concept of theosis (deification). This concept emerged very early in Christian history. In particular, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 202), an important Church Father of the second century, emphasised that the goal of the Christian life is union with God, and that it is through this union that humanity is transformed to become like him. Indeed, Irenaeus was the first to make the statement that "if the Word is made man, it is that men might become gods."[3] Implicit in this statement is the idea that the Incarnation allows humanity to more fully participate in the divine, and that through union with God, humanity is deified. In fact, the Incarnation not only allows for union with God, this union is the very purpose of the Incarnation. This concept of theosis, or union with God, was repeated by later Fathers. For instance, St. Athanasius the Great (c. 298-372) borrowed the above quote by Irenaeus to defend the divinity of Christ against the attacks of the Arians at the time of the first ecumenical council in Nicea (325). In Athanasius' eyes, to attack the divinity of Christ was to attack the very possibility of salvation itself, for to deny that God himself became incarnate was to deny the possibility of union with God. Unless Jesus Christ is "of one substance with the Father," as the Nicene Creed states, there could be no theosis.[4] Therefore, these Fathers stressed the importance of theosis as being the central goal of the Christian life for all Christians, and they vigorously fought any theological formulations which could undermine this soteriology.

However, it was within the East's monastic institutions that the concept of theosis was especially emphasised through the development of hesychasm. This development greatly influenced later Orthodox history and spirituality. With its emphasis on the patristic concept of theosis, hesychastic spirituality focused on the necessity of ceaseless inner prayer as a means of experiencing the divine; an experience which came to be associated with a vision of uncreated light such as that which shone from Jesus at the Transfiguration. For reasons which will be discussed within this paper, hesychastic spirituality came to the forefront in the fourteenth century, and since that time it has played a key role as a renewal movement within Eastern Christianity up to the present day. However, the origins of hesychasm are to be found in the deserts of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Sinai in the third and fourth centuries. Beginning in these centuries Christians started to make an exodus from the cities toward the desert in search of a higher degree of perfection. Interestingly, this exodus towards the desert coincided with the emergence of the "Peace of the Church" in which the persecution of Christians came to a halt under the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine. While this peace brought a certain degree of consolation to many within the Church, it also brought a certain degree of unease amongst a sizeable population of Christians. In the latter's eyes, the martyrs had provided Christian and pagan alike with a supreme example of worldly renunciation which manifested itself in a devotion to Christ to the point of death. The new peace, however, meant that this form of worldly renunciation was no longer available to the believer. The result was the development of a new form of renunciation - ascetic solitude. Derwas J. Chitty, a prominent historian of early desert monasticism, describes this development this way:

In the new worldly security of the Church, the Christian would seek to recover the old martyr spirit; while the pagan brought to the Faith by what he had seen of the life and death of Christians in time of persecution, would seek a way of not less absolute devotion to Christ.[5]

This desire to "recover the martyr spirit" is perhaps most evident in the person of St. Antony (c. 251-356). It was during a time of relative peace in the Church, just before Constantine's reign, that Antony departed for the desert from his home in Upper Egypt. Having been bequeathed a fairly substantial amount of land and money after his parents' death, Antony was given the responsibility of caring for his younger sister. However, at about the age of twenty, Antony walked into a church one day only to hear a gospel reading which convicted him to his depth: "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (Matt. 19.21).[6] These words of Jesus so struck Antony that he sold all he had, left some possessions for his sister, and gave the rest to the needy. He then departed into the Egyptian desert to live a life of asceticism and solitude in pursuit of perfection. As such, he subjected himself to rigorous ascetic practices, eating rarely and dressing poorly, and he focused upon praying ceaselessly; an activity which he saw as being essential to experiencing the divine.[7] However, this sincere striving towards Christ-like perfection was combined with a sense of the necessity of the grace of God in accomplishing this task. That this was the case is illustrated by one story in which Antony, while in the midst of struggling against demons sent to discourage his progress, received a vision of light which sent these demons fleeing. Recognising this light to be from God, Antony questioned God as to why he had waited so long to help him. The reply was straightforward: "I was here, Antony, but I waited to watch your struggle. And now, since you persevered and were not defeated, I will be your helper forever."[8] This account, told by St. Athanasius in his Life of Antony, illustrates an important feature which would be prominent throughout subsequent Orthodox history and spirituality. That is, it is through diligent effort and prayer, combined with the grace of God, that one is granted a direct experience of God and is transformed in the process.

Antony was among the first Christians to embrace the desert, but he was followed by scores of other believers eager to diligently pursue theosis through rigorous asceticism. The title of Derwas J. Chitty's book on desert monasticism, The Desert a City, is an apt description of the sheer volume of those who migrated into the desert. By the fifth century, the whole length of the Nile Valley was populated by ascetics, with some choosing the cenobitic life after the model of Pachomius (d. 346), and others choosing to live as anchorites after the model of St. Antony.[9] Correspondingly, the deserts of Sinai, Palestine, and Syria became increasingly populated, with important monastic foundations, such as Mar Sabas in Palestine and St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, coming into the forefront of Orthodox spirituality.

The Development of Hesychasm
At the heart of this monastic spirituality was the development of hesychasm as a means toward achieving an experience of the divine (theosis), and this development proved to be of immense importance in the history of the Orthodox Church. The term hesychasm is derived from hesychia; a word which denotes tranquillity, stillness, and concerted concentration.[10] As early as the fourth century, the term hesychia was used to describe the life of the desert monk as being one of interior silence and diligence in pursuit of communion with God. While outward ascetic exercises were seen as being beneficial in purifying oneself for communion with God, in the fourth century increasing emphasis was placed on the necessity of inner ceaseless prayer, achieved through diligence and concentration, as a means of experiencing the divine. It was out of this emphasis that the spirituality of hesychasm developed and flourished.

Within the literature of early desert monasticism, two writers of the fourth century were especially influential in the development of hesychastic spirituality - Evagrius Ponticus (d. 399) and Pseudo-Macarius. A monk of Cellia in the Egyptian desert, Evagrius has been called the first codifier of a monastic doctrine of prayer.[11] In his writings, Evagrius defined prayer as "the ascent of the intellect to God," and in so doing he emphasised the necessity of intellectual prayer, as a means toward achieving union with God.[12] Because Evagrius held to a neo-platonic anthropological dualism reminiscent of Origenist teaching, he elevated the role of the intellect in prayer to the detriment of the role of the body, and as a result, Evagrius taught a mysticism which was purely intellectualistic.[13] The writings of Pseudo-Macarius, an unknown fourth century monk, provided a counterbalance to Evagrius' 'prayer of the mind.' In contrast to Evagrius' dualistic anthropology which elevated the intellect, Macarius elevated the heart as being the "source of all intellectual and spiritual activity" in a human.[14] In other words, Macarius viewed the heart as being the centre of a person's will, intellect, and body. Therefore, by focusing on 'prayer of the heart,' rather than 'prayer of the mind,' Macarius advocated an experience of God which penetrated the heart, thus implying that the body participates in union with God. In other words, Macarius' spirituality entailed more of an affective element than did Evagrius' spirituality.

Later writers attempted to provide a synthesis of Evagrius' 'prayer of the mind' and Macarius' 'prayer of the heart,' and it is in this synthesis that the Jesus Prayer - a prayer which has played a profound role in the spread of hesychast spirituality up to the present day - emerges. Of particular importance to this synthesis was St. Diadochos of Photiki (d. 486). Interestingly, while Diadochos held to the importance of intellectual prayer as a means of attaining union with God, he likewise stressed the importance of the body in prayer. In Diadochos' eyes, one of the chief difficulties in attaining hesychia is the restlessness of the intellect, which is constantly active. He therefore suggested that the intellect should continually invoke the name of Jesus so as to be fully concentrated on ceaseless prayer, and that it is through this intellectual prayer that one achieves union with God. However, this union with God is not purely intellectualistic, as it was for Evagrius. Rather, Diadochos incorporated the affective element of Macarius' spirituality through his suggestion that the experience of God is to be had by the totality of one's being: "[The intellect] is capable of perceiving ineffably the goodness of God. Then, according to the measure of its own progress, the intellect communicates its joy to the body too."[15] Therefore, Diadochus combines intellectual prayer with the idea that the body participates, and reaps the rewards of, union with God. Vladimir Lossky describes the implications of Diadochus' ideas succinctly when he writes that in Diadochus, "the mysticism of the intellect and the mysticism of the heart are united, opening the way for a spirituality which will engage the whole nature of man."[16]

However, Diadochus' emphasis on union with God as an existential experience encompassing 'the whole nature of humanity' was taken to new heights by St. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022), a monk of the monastery of St. Mamas near Constantinople. His influence on later hesychasts, specifically those who participated in the hesychast controversy of the fourteenth century, should not be underestimated. Of particular note is Symeon's stress on the necessity of experiencing union with God through a vision of divine light. While earlier writers likewise associated union with God with a vision of light, Symeon wrote more explicitly and directly about this idea than any previous Father, even to the point of describing his own mystical experiences of being overcome by divine light while in the midst of praying the Jesus Prayer.[17] Symeon's own mystical experiences illustrate that he viewed the experience of God to be one which was not purely intellectualistic, but was one which encompassed the whole of his being. Referring to himself in the third person, Symeon writes: "He was wholly in the presence of immaterial light and seemed to himself to have turned into light."[18] His was an overtly existential spirituality, and the emphasis he placed on the vision of God as light greatly influenced the development of hesychastic spirituality, which came to associate this divine light with the light that shone from Jesus at the Transfiguration.

One more facet of the development of hesychastic spirituality prior to the fourteenth century must be addressed; that is, the development of a psychosomatic technique by hesychasts as an aid to concentration. As early as the seventh century, St. John Climacus connected the recitation of the name of Jesus, an early form of the Jesus Prayer, with breathing: "Let the remembrance of Jesus be present with your every breath. Then indeed you will appreciate the value of stillness."[19] Similar sentiments are expressed in the writings of St. Hesychius (c. eighth century) and St. Philotheus (c. ninth century), both of Sinai.[20] However, it was not until the thirteenth century that a specific physical technique for praying was written down by Nicephorus of Mount Athos (d. c. 1300). Seen by Nicephorus as an aid to greater concentration, the psychosomatic technique espoused in his treatise On Watchfulness and the Guarding of the Heart became known as the hesychast method of prayer. This technique involved sitting in a particular posture with one's head bowed toward the naval, or toward the heart, in combination with the regulation of one's breathing. The purpose of such an exercise was to, in Nicephorus' words, "enter through [the] intellect into the abode of the heart," and once this was accomplished, one was to continually recite the Jesus Prayer - "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me."[21] At the heart of such terminology is the insistence on the fundamental unity of the human person - mind, heart, and body - in the task of prayer whereby, in the words of Kallistos Ware, "the one who prays is totally united with the prayer itself and with the Divine Companion to whom the prayer is addressed."[22]

Such, therefore, are the basic contours which marked the development of hesychasm up to the thirteenth century. The earliest ascetics had left the world in order to recover a spirit of martyrdom through rigorous ascetic practices and to devote themselves to prayer in search of communion with God. As monasticism developed throughout the Orthodox world, greater emphasis was placed on the determined concentration of mind, heart, and body in the active contemplation of God through hesychia, and it is this emphasis which compelled ascetic writers, like St. Diadochos, to focus on ceaseless inner prayer (such as the invocation of the name of Jesus) as a means experiencing union with God. Underlying this focus on ceaseless prayer was the assertion of the inherent unity of the human person, and as such, hesychasm emphasised the role of the body in prayer through posture and breathing exercises. More importantly, hesychasm emphasised the role of the body in the actual experience of God, whereby the aspirant is transformed - mind, heart, and body - through this encounter with the divine. Finally, the experience of union with God was strongly associated with a vision of uncreated divine light by hesychasts - the same light which shone in Jesus at the Transfiguration - who saw this vision of light as the pinnacle of mystical experience.

The Fourteenth-Century Hesychastic Controversy
Therefore, the broad contours of hesychastic spirituality and practice were well developed by the fourteenth century. Unfortunately, by the fourteenth century, hesychasm was no longer a widespread movement within Orthodox monasticism, as made evident in the example of St. Gregory of Sinai (c. 1255-1346). Gregory was born near the western shores of Asia Minor, but he received the full monastic profession in the desert of Sinai. However, it was not until he left Sinai for Crete that he was introduced to hesychastic spirituality by a monk named Arsenios; a remarkable fact given that Sinaite monasticism played a key role in the development of hesychasm, as seen above. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, Gregory decided to settle at Mount Athos in Greece - one of the key centres of Orthodox monasticism by the time - in search of others who could further him along the path of hesychasm. To his dismay, Gregory testified that he could find only three monks on the whole of the Mount Athos who practised hesychia despite the fact that Nicephorus of Mount Athos had promulgated hesychastic practice almost immediately prior to Gregory's arrival on the Holy Mountain. Instead, Gregory found that emphasis was placed on outward ascetic exercises, manual labour, and liturgical prayer, to the detriment of the cultivation of inner prayer.

St. Gregory of Sinai's influence on Athos helped to remarkably change this situation. Settling in a secluded skete away from the large cenobitic monasteries on the Holy Mountain, Gregory became a spiritual director to a small group of aspirants intent on learning the path of hesychia. Like Nicephorus, Gregory recommended the physical technique of praying the Jesus Prayer: "Sitting from dawn on a seat about nine inches high, compel your intellect to descend from your head into your heart, and retain it there. Keeping your head forcibly bent downwards...persevere in repeating noetically [in the intellect] or in your soul 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy.'"[23] Added to this exhortation, Gregory recommends that the regulation of one's breathing aids in being continually mindful of God, and he quotes St. John Climacus' advice of letting the "remembrance of Jesus be present with your every breath" (see above).[24] For Gregory, the end result of this inner prayer is an experience of God which transforms the aspirant. In some cases, this experience of God results in an inner divine warmth: "Sometimes, as the passions subside through the ceaseless invocation of Jesus Christ, a divine energy wells up in the heart, and a divine warmth is kindled."[25] However, the experience of God is manifested in a vision of uncreated light, after the example of St. Symeon the New Theologian, to those who are advanced in the spiritual life:

In others - particularly in those well advanced in prayer - God produces a gentle and serene flow of light. This is when Christ comes to dwell in the heart, as St. Paul says (cf. Eph. 3.17), mystically disclosing Himself through the Holy Spirit...for it is in this that He attests the perfection of our prayer.[26]

St. Gregory of Sinai's teaching on hesychasm was met with enthusiasm on the Holy Mountain, leading to a renaissance of hesychastic spirituality there. While he started out with relatively few disciples in 1300, by 1325, when he left Athos, Gregory was considered to be an important spiritual father to many disciples all over the Holy Mountain.

At the same time as this hesychastic renaissance was flowering on Athos, Gregory endeavoured to spread this spirituality outside monastic confines to the cities of Byzantium. His words to one of his disciples whom he sent back into the world illustrates this desire to cultivate inner prayer among the laity: "I do not wish you to live here in the wilderness or the mountains - why do that? - but rather in the world, among the monks and the lay people dwelling there, that you may serve as a model to them all."[27] While St. Gregory of Sinai should not be given full credit for the renaissance of hesychasm in Byzantium - other hesychasts such as Theoleptus, bishop of Philadelphia (c. 1250-1322), did play a role in reviving hesychasm within Byzantine society - there can be no doubt that the Sinaite played an overarching role in spreading hesychastic spirituality through his example and through the example of his disciples.[28] As a result, fourteenth century Byzantium witnessed a revival of hesychasm within her monasteries and within society at large.

This revival of hesychasm in the fourteenth century corresponded with a renaissance of a different sort among the intellectuals of Byzantium. While Eastern monasticism was once again recovering the spiritual glory of its past, the Byzantine empire as a whole was only a shadow of what it once had been. Since the eleventh century Turkish pressure had been pervasive, and the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by Latin Crusaders greatly diminished the strength of the empire. Though Constantinople did not finally succumb to the Turks until 1453, the Byzantine empire, as it existed in the fourteenth century, was a civilisation in its twilight. Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that, among the intellectuals of Byzantium, "notions of impending doom and of inferiority to the past became much more pronounced" in the fourteenth century.[29] Many of these intellectuals compared their plight to that of Hellenistic times, and to that of the West which was in the midst of a cultural renaissance. Such comparison led to a certain nostalgia and longing for the Hellenistic past, and as a result, Hellenistic thought experienced a resurgence within intellectual circles. While still remaining faithful to the Orthodox Church, these fourteenth century humanists endeavoured to interpret theology through the lenses of Hellenistic wisdom. In the words of Vladimir Lossky, "the old hellenism reappears in the writings of the humanists who, formed by their studies of philosophy, wish to see the Cappadocians through the eyes of Plato, Dionysius through the eyes of Proclus, Maximus and John Damascene through the eyes of Aristotle."[30] Therefore, this re-emergence of Hellenistic philosophy owed its origins to a pervading desire to return to an era of bygone greatness, and was not the result of Western influence on the East. At the same time, however, this re-emergence did pose a problem of 'westernisation' for the Eastern Church. By the fourteenth century, scholasticism reigned supreme in the West, meaning that theology largely became subject to rationalistic interpretation on the basis of Aristotelian presuppositions, and became somewhat divorced from personal experience of the divine. Likewise, the humanists in the East endeavoured to bring about a similar form of theological scholasticism whereby reason would be elevated over experience. Consequently, what emerged in Byzantium in the fourteenth century were two very different types of renewal. On the one hand, Byzantine monasticism inaugurated a renaissance of hesychasm - an existential spirituality based on the patristic and ascetic emphasis on theosis. On the other hand, Byzantine humanists inaugurated a renaissance of Hellenism whereby reason prevailed over experience, and patristic theology was subservient to rational thought. It proved to be inevitable that these two schools of thought would come into conflict in what has been labelled as the 'hesychastic controversy.'

The two key players in this controversy were Barlaam the Calabrian (d. 1350), a humanist, and St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), a hesychast. Though Barlaam was Greek, he was educated in southern Italy where he was "imbued with the spirit of the Italian Renaissance."[31] However, despite his western education Barlaam remained a faithful adherent to the Orthodox Church, and in 1330 he arrived in Constantinople where he came under the patronage of the future emperor John Cantacuzene (he came to power in 1347). While under Cantacuzene's patronage, Barlaam spent much of his time producing commentaries on the writings of the great fifth-century apophatic theologian, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and within a short time he gained a reputation as a learned man in Constantinople who was consulted on matters of theology and philosophy.[32] On these matters, Barlaam exhibited the nostalgia and respect for the Hellenistic past which characterised Byzantine humanism at this time, as will be seen shortly. St. Gregory Palamas, on the other hand, was far more influenced by the renaissance of hesychasm in Byzantium. Palamas was born to an aristocratic family in Constantinople, where his father was a senator and a close friend of the emperor Andronicus II. Palamas' family appears to have been very much influenced by the burgeoning renewal of hesychasm at this time, as illustrated in a story told by Gregory's biographer, Philotheus, in which his father did not hear the emperor addressing him during a meeting of the Senate because he was immersed in the practice of inner prayer.[33] Gregory himself was initiated in hesychastic practice in his youth by the aforementioned Theoleptus, bishop of Philadelphia. Upon the death of his father, Palamas was enrolled in the Imperial University by the emperor where the curriculum included the humanistic study of Aristotelian philosophy. However, Palamas cut his education short and at the age of twenty, and having already been influenced by hesychasm as a youth, he left the world to pursue hesychia on Mount Athos. While on the Holy Mountain, Palamas came under the tutelage of experienced hesychasts, and there is evidence to suggest that Palamas was a disciple of St. Gregory of Sinai before both monks were forced off Athos by Turkish incursions in 1325.[34] After a six year hiatus from Athos, Palamas returned to the Holy Mountain in 1331, settled in the hermitage of St. Sabbas where he cultivated hesychia in solitude, and in the process, garnered great respect from monks all over the mountain.

Palamas first became aware of Barlaam in 1335 when he came into contact with one of Barlaam's treatises on the filioque clause. Faithful to the East's rejection of the filioque clause which the Western Church had inserted into the Nicene Creed, Barlaam utilised the apophatic theology of Pseudo-Dionysius and the logic of Aristotle to refute the claim made by the West that the filioque clause could be demonstrated rationally. According to Barlaam, Pseudo-Dionysius made it clear that God was completely unknowable, and that this premise was substantiated by the Aristotelian idea that apodictic demonstration cannot apply to divine truths, which are indemonstrable.[35] However, Barlaam's argument necessarily implied that the Eastern position on the filioque clause was likewise indemonstrable, meaning that the filioque clause should not be seen as an impediment to union between East and West as any doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit can be relegated to mere theological speculation.[36] It was this point which first provoked the ire of Palamas who had already written two treatises against the filioque clause which postulated that apodictic demonstration of the Eastern position was in fact possible. Like Barlaam, Palamas held the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius in great esteem, but he felt that Barlaam's arguments neglected to acknowledge a fundamental antimony of Orthodox theology; that is, that the unknowable God, through his Spirit, has revealed himself to the Fathers of the past, and continues to reveal himself to those who have purified their hearts.[37] As such, to posit divine truths as indemonstrable is to undermine the possibility of theosis as a personal experience of God made possible by his Spirit.

Barlaam and Palamas continued to correspond regarding this issue over the next two years. During this time, Barlaam came into contact with some hesychasts in Thessalonica who discussed with him the hesychast method of prayer, as outlined by Nicephorus of Mount Athos and St. Gregory of Sinai. When he was told by these monks that the human body could participate in prayer and could even sense divine grace in the form of a vision of the uncreated light of Tabor through the practice of inner prayer, Barlaam became indignant. Referring to these hesychasts as omphalopsychoi ('navel-psychics') in mockery of their method of prayer, Barlaam launched a complaint in 1338 against hesychastic spirituality with the Patriarch and the Synod in which he claimed hesychasm to be dangerous and heretical.

As a result of his correspondence with Palamas and his exposure to hesychasts in Thessalonica, Barlaam's position on how knowledge of God could be obtained became more pronounced. According to Barlaam, hesychastic theology offended a principle tenet of Orthodox theology - the way of negation (i.e. apophatic theology). This apophaticism had been emphasised by most of the Greek Fathers, and especially Pseudo-Dionysius who wrote that "we cannot know God in his nature, since this is unknowable and is beyond the reach of mind or of reason."[38] Having been tremendously influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius' writings, as already noted, Barlaam held to a vehement apophaticism which led him to the conclusion that knowledge of God could only occur indirectly "through the mediation of his creatures" and not through direct experience.[39] Consequently, while Barlaam did not deny the existence of visions of light, he believed this Taboric light to be created, and therefore not a direct experience of God.[40] Added to that, Barlaam came to view knowledge of God as being purely intellectual, and as a result, he associated salvation with the casting "off of every kind of ignorance" through the use of the intellect.[41] In his correspondence with Palamas, Barlaam's anthropology showed clear signs of a neo-platonic dualism which prevented him from acknowledging any possibility of the body participating in deification. God's ineffability coupled with this Platonic dualism necessarily led Barlaam to assert that the intellect alone was capable of indirect divine illumination. Due to the fact that God is completely unknowable, knowledge of him is only available through knowledge of the created order of things (i.e. philosophy). As such, Barlaam concluded that the Hellenistic philosophers could be said to have been illumined by God to the same degree as any Church Father due to their exercise of the intellect.[42]

Therefore, Barlaam's arguments undermined the very purpose of hesychastic spirituality - theosis. Because of his strict apophaticism and his neo-platonic dualism, Barlaam explicitly denied any possibility of direct knowledge and experience of God, and relegated knowledge of God to being indirect and purely intellectual. In 1338, once Barlaam launched his formal complaint against hesychasm as being heretical, Palamas was convinced to leave Athos to defend hesychasm from these attacks. While hesychasm had roots stretching back to the fourth century, the circumstances were now calling for "an objective theological basis" for hesychastic spirituality, and it was Palamas who answered this call.[43] As he formulated this theological basis, Palamas could not deny the tremendous emphasis placed on the apophatic way by Pseudo-Dionysius as well as other Greek Fathers; Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215), the Cappadocian Fathers (fourth century), St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), St. Maximus the Confessor (d. 662), St. John Damascene (d. 749), to name just a few, all emphasised that God was unknowable.[44] Given the overwhelming patristic unanimity on this issue, Palamas had to affirm an apophatic theology as well. At the same time, however, Palamas noted that these same Fathers who viewed God as unknowable also stressed the importance of an experiential union with God. Of particular note, St. Symeon the New Theologian, whom we have already noted as placing especial importance on the experience of the divine, held a theology which was apophatic. This paradox was observed by Symeon when he wrote, "[God] appears clearly and is consciously known and clearly seen, though He is invisible."[45] The task for Palamas was to somehow preserve this antimony in such a way as to prove the veracity of hesychastic spirituality. In his own words: "We attain to participation in the divine nature, and yet at the same time it remains totally inaccessible. We need to affirm both at the same time and to preserve the antinomy as a criteria of right devotion."[46]

To accomplish this task, Palamas relied on terminology utilised by the above noted Fathers, that is, he distinguished between the essence of God and the energies of God.[47] With strong patristic support, Palamas declared that God is unknowable and utterly transcendent in his essence, but he has manifested himself in his uncreated energies in order that union with him would be possible:

That which participates in something according to the essence must necessarily possess a common essence with that in which it participates and be identical to it in some respect. But who has ever heard that God and we possess in some respect the same essence? St. Basil the Great says, 'The energies of God come down to us, but the essence remains inaccessible.' And St. Maximos also says, 'He who is deified through grace will be everything that God is, without possessing identity of essence.' Thus it is impossible to participate in God's essence, even for those who are deified by divine grace. It is, however, possible to participate in the divine energy.[48]

Of particular importance to Palamas was the preservation of the experience of theosis, which he saw as being impossible if God's grace was created. In order for union with God to be possible without jeopardising the divine transcendence, God's energies must be affirmed as being entirely divine. Palamas describes this relationship between the essence and the energies of God in this antinomy: "God is entirely present in each of the divine energies...although it is clear that he transcends all of them."[49] To clarify this idea, Palamas compared the essence and the energies of God to the sun and its rays; the sun's rays are the energies of the sun, and therefore still to be associated with the sun, though the sun's essence remains distinct.[50] In Palamas' mind, unless this distinction between the essence and the energies of God was affirmed, there were one of two heretical ideas which resulted. First, if one affirms the possibility of theosis without making a distinction between the essence and the energies of God, then one has to admit the possibility of being united with the essence of God thereby making the created equal with the Creator.[51] Second, if one affirms that the energies of God are created, as Barlaam affirmed, then the possibility of union with the divine (theosis) must be discarded.[52]

However, Palamas saw this distinction between the essence and the energies of God as providing the theological basis for divine union with the divine and the vision of the uncreated light of Tabor. Palamas endeavoured to show that the light which surrounded Christ on Mount Tabor was a vision of God in his energies, and that through this vision, God manifested himself to the apostles and continues to manifest himself to those who, through prayer, are given the grace of this divine light. In contrast to Barlaam, who saw the light of Tabor to be "an apparition and a symbol of the kind that now is and now is not" - in other words 'created' - Palamas refers to it as follows:

For the saints both in hymns and in their writings call this light ineffable, uncreated, eternal, timeless, unapproachable, boundless, infinite, limitless, invisible to angels and men, archetypal and unchanging beauty, the glory of God, the glory of Christ, the glory of the Spirit, the ray of Divinity and so forth.[53]

As such, a vision of uncreated light is a vision of God himself, though not in his essence, and it is through this vision that one is united to God. Condemning Barlaam's notion that salvation is a matter of intellectual effort, Palamas made it clear that this union with God encompassed the whole of a human person:

For once the soul's passible aspect is transformed and sanctified - but not reduced to a deathlike condition - through it the dispositions and activities of the body are also sanctified, since body and soul share a conjoint existence...When saintly people become the happy possessors of spiritual and supranatural grace and power, they see [the uncreated light] both with the sense of sight and with the intellect that which surpasses both sense and intellect.[54]

In his defence of hesychasm, Palamas sought to formulate a theological basis for an existential spirituality which conformed to accepted patristic teachings, and as such, his writings are filled with quotations from the Fathers. In response to Palamas' formulations, Barlaam continued his attacks from a humanist perspective, and he was supported in this quest by many humanists within Byzantium who viewed hesychasm to be anti-intellectual and backward. Despite the fact that the 1341 Council of Constantinople sided with Palamite doctrine, a decision which compelled Barlaam to permanently leave the East for Italy, the controversy between humanists and hesychasts continued for another decade. After Barlaam departed, Gregory Akindynos and Nicephorus Gregoras took up the humanist cause, while Palamas persevered in defending the hesychasts. Finally, in 1351 another council was convened in Constantinople to decisively deal with the conflict, and the decision of this council proved to be monumental for later Orthodox history. A number of issues were discussed in this council. First, the council debated whether there is a distinction between the essence and the energies of God, and if so, whether such a distinction implies a ditheistic theology as the humanists alleged. The council also debated whether the energies of God are created or uncreated, and whether participation in God is a participation in God's essence or his energies. As the council compared Palamite theology with patristic theology, the council determined that Palamas was in full conformity with Orthodox tradition. In its opinion, the council felt that the Fathers did indeed distinguish between the essence and the energies of God, both uncreated, in which participation in God is made possible in his energies but not in his unknowable essence. As such, the council stated that this distinction in God did not imply division or ditheism, for the essence and the energies both belong to the same indivisible God who mysteriously manifests himself fully in his uncreated energies, and it is through these uncreated energies that an experiential union with God is made possible. Finally, the council affirmed that this union with God through his energies is manifested to humans in a vision of the uncreated light of Tabor, which can be seen with bodily eyes even though it is uncreated.[55]

Throughout the whole of the hesychastic controversy, Palamas consistently responded to the Hellenistic encroachments of the humanists by appealing to patristic sources. Therefore, it is significant that the 1351 Council of Constantinople formally accepted Palamas' patristic formulations rather than the rationalistic theology propounded by the humanists, for by this decision, the Council made the existential hesychastic theology official Church dogma. John Meyendorff described the implications of this event as follows:

[Palamas'] thought, taken as a whole, certainly marked a step forward in the progressive liberation of Eastern Christian theology from Platonic Hellenism, and his final victory in 1351 amounted, for Byzantine culture, to a refusal of the new humanist civilization which the West was in the process of adapting.[56]

While the ascetic and patristic Fathers of the past consistently advocated an experiential participation in God, the victory of the hesychasts in the fourteenth century solidified the elevation in the East of an existential, patristic theology over a theological scholasticism marked by the influence of Hellenistic philosophy. In other words, the council's decision essentially amounted to an official rejection of Western scholasticism, and a declaration of Eastern Christian theological distinctiveness. This decision would prove to shape Eastern Christianity up to the present day.

Go To Part 2

ISSN: 1496-2798

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

To Be Transformed By Vision Of The Uncreated Light 2

Post by Kollyvas »

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/axismundi/2 ... _part2.php

To Be Transformed by a Vision of Uncreated Light:
A Survey on the Influence of the Existential Spirituality of Hesychasm on Eastern Orthodox History
(Part 2)
-by Gregory K. Hillis
1st year, Graduate Studies
McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario
January 10, 2002

The Spread of Hesychasm in the 14th and 15th Centuries: The Russian Experience
While the hesychastic controversy was playing itself out within the Byzantine Empire, the aforementioned St. Gregory of Sinai continued to disseminate hesychastic spirituality outside the confines of Byzantium. After leaving Athos in 1325 because of Turkish raids, the Sinaite wandered around the Byzantine Empire with his disciples before finally settling in the wilderness of Paroria in 1335. Located on the border of the Byzantine Empire and Bulgaria, Gregory lived under the patronage of John Alexander, the Tsar of Bulgaria, teaching hesychastic spirituality to those who surrounded him. Greeks were numbered as his disciples, though mainly Bulgarians and Serbs came under his direction. This settlement "served as a link between the Greek and the Slav worlds," and can be given some credit for creating a renaissance of hesychasm within the Slavic world. As Kallistos Ware asserts, it was monks from Paroria, and their immediate disciples, who were responsible for a revival of hesychasm within Slavic monasteries in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.[57] Added to the efforts of Gregory, hesychastic Patriarchs of Constantinople - like Kallistos (ruled 1350-54; 1355-63), Philotheus (1354-5; 1364-76), and Ignatius Xanthopoulos (1397), endeavoured to spread the movement throughout Slavic lands.[58] Their efforts were successful. While translations of Greek works into Slavonic had occurred since the time of the missionary efforts of St. Cyril and St. Methodius in the ninth century, the fourteenth century witnessed a flurry of translating activity amongst the Balkan Slavs, particularly amongst Bulgarian and Serbian monks.[59] This new activity came as a direct result of the hesychastic renaissance, and entire works connected with the hesychastic movement were translated from Greek into Slavonic. These translations included the works of contemporary hesychasts such as Gregory of Sinai, Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Kabasilas, (c. 1320-1391), Patriarch Kallistos, and Patriarch Ignatius Xanthopoulos. Likewise, ascetic Church Fathers important to the hesychastic movement were translated into Slavonic; these included Isaac the Syrian, a seventh century monk who wrote on the ecstatic experiences possible through prayer, as well as St. John Climacus, St. Symeon the New Theologian, among others.[60] Added to this revival of translation, many Russian monks acted as copyists and translators in Greek monasteries in Constantinople and Mount Athos.[61] The end result was the heretofore-unseen proliferation of patristic sources made available to Russian Christianity through Russian monks and pilgrims who transported manuscripts back to Russia from Byzantium. Whereas only two ascetic Fathers were available in Kievan Russia (St. Basil the Great and St. John Climacus), a great wealth of patristic literature became available to Russians in the fourteenth century. Therefore, it is not surprising that this renaissance of translating activity caused by the revival of hesychasm coincided with a revival of monasticism within Russia.

By the fourteenth century, monasticism in Russia was in great need of some sort of renewal. The thirteenth century witnessed to the cataclysmic invasion of Mongol forces onto Russian soil, whereby many monasteries were destroyed and communication with Byzantium was greatly diminished. After more than a century of Mongol oppression, Russian monasticism found itself with very few examples of spiritual greatness. George Fedotov described the situation as follows:

The first century of Mongol yoke not only led to the destruction of the life of the state and the culture of ancient Russia, but it also suffocated the spiritual life for a long time...The material distress and the length of the struggle for life were so great that general degradation was the natural result of it. After more than a century, the Russian Church had no more new holy monks.[62]

It was out of such an atmosphere that "the renewer of monasticism in Russia" emerged - St. Sergius of Radonezh (1315-1392).[63] St. Sergius' life was lived contemporaneously with the revival of hesychasm occurring throughout much of the Christian East. However, he began his monastic career at a time when Russian monasticism had yet to reap the benefits of this renaissance which had revived monasteries and the spiritual life in other Orthodox lands. Nevertheless, even as a young man Sergius read the Scriptures, liturgical works, and Church Fathers which were all available at the Rostov library where he spent much of his youth. His reading inspired within him a desire for monastic life, and at the age of 23, Sergius left the world to live the eremitic life; an uncharacteristic decision given that cenobitism was the predominant form of monastic life within Russia. At the same time, it was a decision which was monumentally significant for the renewal of Russian monasticism. Whereas the monasteries of Kievan Russia were generally cenobitic monasteries in urban areas, Sergius led the movement which brought the "monasticism of the desert" to fourteenth century Russia, specifically to the northern forests of Russia around the Volga River known as the Northern Thebaid.[64] Corresponding to this movement into the Russian 'desert' was the first emergence of mysticism within Russian monasticism; a development which was very much connected to the flowering of hesychasm in the rest of the Orthodox world, making its way on to Russian soil.

While Sergius became a hermit to escape the world, the world inevitably came to him. As has been the case throughout Christian monastic history, holy men and women have attracted disciples who wished to learn from them. Such was the case with Sergius. After two years of living in solitude, Sergius was approached by monks wanting to emulate his asceticism and learn from him. The end result was the foundation of Holy Trinity Monastery; a monastic community which was loosely organised as a skete, a small monastic village with individual huts located around a central church, though it eventually converted to a cenobitic community at the urging of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Of crucial importance to this study is the emergence of mysticism, and mystical experiences, in Russia connected with St. Sergius. Epiphanius the Wise, Sergius' biographer, described one of Sergius' mystical experiences:

One day the saint [Sergius], in accordance with his usual rule, was keeping vigil and praying for the brotherhood late at night when he heard a voice calling, "Sergius!" He was astonished, and opening the window of the cell he beheld a wondrous vision. A great radiance shone in the heavens, the night sky was illumined by its brilliance, exceeding the light of day.[65]

Such visions of light and fire were characteristic of Sergius' mysticism; the first Russian monk to have such experiences.[66] Can it simply be coincidence that visions of light emerged in Russia at precisely the same time that hesychasm - a spirituality which placed great emphasis on visions of the uncreated light of Tabor - was making inroads onto Russian soil? There is no doubt that Sergius was fully aware of the hesychastic movement. Not only was he in direct contact with two hesychast patriarchs, Kallistos and Philotheus, but a number of his disciples had direct connections with Mount Athos where hesychasm was flowering. For example, two of Sergius disciples, Sergius of Naroma and Athanasius, future abbot of Serpukhov, both came from Mount Athos where they laboured as copyists.[67] A connection between the hesychastic movement and St. Sergius becomes even more obvious upon observing that manuscripts of the writings of prominent hesychasts which date from the fourteenth century have been found in the library of Holy Trinity. Indeed, some of these manuscripts come from the pen of Sergius himself, including copies of the writings of St. Symeon the New Theologian and St. Gregory of Sinai.[68] Given these connections of the St. Sergius and Holy Trinity monastery with the wider hesychast movement, it is clear that the fourteenth century hesychastic renaissance was very influential in the renewal of Russian monastic life.

St. Sergius' influence on Russian monasticism extended far beyond the walls of the Holy Trinity Monastery. Sergius himself founded nine monasteries, and his immediate disciples founded twelve. In the following years after Sergius' death, Holy Trinity founded fifty monasteries, and these fifty monasteries founded forty more. All in all, from the beginning of the fourteenth century until the mid-fifteenth century, 180 new monasteries were founded; most of which were influenced by the example of Sergius.[69] These monasteries continued to foster connections with Mount Athos and with other monasteries in Byzantium and the South Slavic countries, where hesychasm continued to flourish in the fifteenth century despite the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453.

In the latter half of the fifteenth century, this connection with the spirituality of Mount Athos was strengthened through the efforts of St. Nil Sorskij (1433-1508).[70] Led to the monastic life through the influence of the "ascetical tone of the current literature of his day," Nil was tonsured at Kirillo-Belozerskij monastery in the Northwest of Russia.[71] While there, he came under the spiritual direction of Paisij Jaroslavov; a monk imbued with the spirit of Athonite monasticism. Under his tutelage, Nil was exposed to the writings of prominent ascetic Fathers, including St. Nilus of Sinai (d. c. 430), one of the first ascetic writers to refer specifically to the Jesus Prayer,[72] St. Symeon the New Theologian, and significantly, St. Gregory of Sinai.[73] Through this reading under Paisij's direction, Nil was initiated into the practice of inner prayer, and in 1465 he left Russia for Mount Athos and Constantinople in order to immerse himself more completely into this hesychastic spirituality.

Nil's education in Russia was fairly extensive, and gave him a fluent knowledge of Greek. As such, the libraries of Constantinople and Mount Athos furnished Nil with the writings of many ascetic Fathers, and these writings continued to foster Nil's desire to build his spiritual life according to the highest hesychastic ideals.[74] Added to this reading, Nil immersed himself into the spiritual life of Mount Athos under the tutelage of Athonite hesychasts. After spending approximately thirteen years under the guidance of patristic sources and hesychast monks, Nil returned to Russia in 1478 filled with an ardent desire to foster a deeper observance of Athonite spirituality within Russian monasticism. However, upon his return to Kirillo-Belozerskij he noted a marked decrease in the quality of monastic observance. While St. Sergius' renewal of Russian monasticism had produced many monasteries throughout northern Russia, the latter half of the fifteenth century saw a notable decrease in the quality of ascetic life practised within some monasteries. Large benefices were made to monasteries by princes and other landholders with the result that opulence had replaced austerity in certain monastic institutions.[75] Such was the case with Kirillo-Belozerskij. Nil described the situation in the following words: "Nowadays one does not see in the monasteries an observance of the laws of God according to the Holy Writings and the traditions of the Holy Fathers, but rather we act according to our own wills and human ways of thinking."[76] Disgusted with the lack of inner spirituality at Kirillo-Belozerskij in comparison to that of Mount Athos, Nil left for the wilderness to live a life of asceticism and to devote himself to the inner prayer of hesychasm. As was the case when St. Sergius went into the wilderness, Nil's solitude did not last. Instead, he found himself surrounded by monks wanting to be his disciples. It was out of this situation that Nil composed his Ustav or 'Rule' to govern the monastic life of this community. Nil intentionally modelled the monastic life of this community on the monasticism of a skete which was prominent on Mount Athos. Indeed, hesychasm especially flourished in the sketes rather than the ruling cenobitic monasteries on the Holy Mountain in the fifteenth century.[77] Whereas St. Sergius initially founded the Holy Trinity monastery along sketic lines, it was Nil who firmly entrenched the skete as a permanent feature of Russian monasticism.[78]

Of particular importance to this study is the spirituality espoused by Nil in his Ustav. First, Nil's Ustav demonstrates the tremendous influence exerted upon him from his study of the Greek Fathers. In all he quotes thirty-one Fathers, though the writings of Isaac the Syrian, St. John Climacus, St. Symeon the New Theologian, and St. Gregory of Sinai were most often utilised.[79] Given his extensive reliance on patristic sources, his Ustav reads more as a compendium of patristic quotations than a work of originality with the reason being that his purpose was not to provide original conceptions, "but rather to be faithful to the teachings of the Fathers."[80] Second, given the influence of the Fathers on Nil, it is not surprising that he provides a picture of monastic life which has as its supreme goal union with God through mental, or inner prayer. While much of the rule is focused on outward observances of obedience, it is clear that these observances are directed toward fostering contemplation. Of especial importance to Nil was the practice of the Jesus Prayer. He maintained that since Scripture as well as the Fathers exhort ceaseless prayer, the Jesus Prayer was the most advantageous means of obeying this exhortation: "We should endeavor to maintain our mind in silence, remote even from thoughts as may seem legitimate. Let us constantly look into the depths of our heart, saying: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me."[81] The end goal of this ceaseless prayer is union with God:

For when, by spiritual operation, the soul is drawn to what is divine, and through this ineffable union becomes like God, being illumined in its movements by the light from on high, and when the mind is thus allowed a foretaste of beatitude then it forgets itself and all earthly things and is affected by nothing.[82]

After writing the above, Nil goes on to provide an account of St. Symeon the New Theologian's mystical vision of this uncreated 'light from on high.' Such a reference to Taboric light illustrates the existential focus of Nil's spirituality, largely derived from his encounter with the hesychastic movement through his reading and his experiences on Mount Athos.

This connection between hesychasm and Nil's spirituality played an influential role in the development of Russian monasticism in subsequent centuries. It was noted above that Nil's attempt at monastic renewal came during a period when many monasteries were quite wealthy and ascetic living was on the wane. In answer to this trend, Nil strictly forbade any monastic possessions so as to allow "the renunciation of all care, which means dying to all things" for, in order to attain union with God, the practice of prayer "entails active concentration on the Task of God alone."[83] Such an assertion greatly disturbed St. Joseph Volokolamsk, a monk who stressed that monastic possessions allowed for needed philanthropic work outside the monastery. He wrote:

He who spends church property otherwise than on the poor, beggars, and the prisoners or on essential monastery needs is a sacrilegious person, and he [i.e. Nil] who wants to take away anything that belongs to a monastery is an offender, and the holy regulations curse him.[84]

Georges Florovsky succinctly sums up the key disagreement between the Josephites and the Trans-Volga hermits (as Nil's movement was called): "The former sought to conquer the world by means of social labor within it; the latter attempted to overcome the world through transfiguration and through the formation of a new man, by creating a human personality."[85]

Whereas the Trans-Volga hermits were very much entrenched in patristic heritage, the Josephites "hardly valued Byzantine tradition."[86] However, the 1503 Synod of Moscow decided in favour of the Josephites; a decision which essentially created two very different monastic schools of thought. Josephite monasteries stressed formalism and ritualism over the inner life, and in the process broke any connection with the contemplative emphasis found in contemporary hesychasm.[87] Thus, the weight of carrying Byzantine mystical tradition fell to the shoulders of the Trans-Volga hermits after Nil's death in 1508. Interestingly, many intellectuals could be numbered among the Trans-Volga hermits, in contrast to the Josephites who exhibited a remarkable lack of intellectual life.[88] As such, the task of copying and correcting manuscripts of patristic writings was eagerly undertaken by the Trans-Volga hermits, thus "rendering invaluable service to the literary world of Russia of the 15th and 16th centuries."[89] It is also important to note that the Trans-Volga hermits produced the greatest proportion of canonised saints in Russian in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; a fact which demonstrates the depth of spirituality of these ascetics in comparison to the monks of the Josephite monasteries.[90] In other words, despite the fact that the Josephite position on monastic possession became the official position of the Church, the Trans-Volga hermits acted as guardians of hesychastic mystical theology in Russia, and it was because of their preservation of this mystical theology that hesychasm was able to survive in Russia despite the tumultuous circumstances of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Hesychasm in the 16th and 17th Centuries
Part of the reason why the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries proved to be tumultuous for the hesychastic movement was because of deteriorating conditions within the Byzantine Empire as well as on Mount Athos. It was noted above that the renaissance of hesychasm within fourteenth-century Byzantium occurred at a time when Byzantine civilisation was a fragment of what is once had been. By the mid-fifteenth century, one hundred years after the victory of hesychasm, the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Turks. On 29 May 1453, the city of Constantinople, the cradle of Byzantine civilisation, came under Muslim control. Initially, under the leadership of the Sultan Mehmet II, the Church fared better than might have been expected; at least on paper. Mehmet saw little reason to actively persecute Orthodox Christians, and indeed saw them as valuable assets to the economy of his empire.[91] Political interests also influenced him to allow the Church to function normally in that a strong Eastern Church preserved a separation from the West, thus preventing the military intervention of any Western Christian country against the Turks.[92]

Needless to say, however, the actual situation for the Orthodox Church under Ottoman rule was greatly inferior to Mehmet's intentions. His successors immediately reneged on many of the rights given to the Church, and ecclesiastical conditions quickly deteriorated. Churches were annexed and turned into mosques, simony became commonplace within the Patriarchate, the laity was heavily taxed, and academies of learning slowly began to disappear as the years wore on.[93] Given that the Patriarchate most often went to the highest bidder, great instability in that office greatly profited Turkish coffers, and led to relative powerlessness on the part of the Patriarch to defend the Church's rights.[94] As a result, when faced with perpetual status as second-class citizens, many Orthodox responded to the proselytising efforts of their Muslim overlords.[95]

Concurrently, the disappearance of educational institutions proved to have a detrimental effect on clergy and laity alike. For those who could afford it, education was to be found in the West; a situation which inevitably led to the conversion of some students to Roman Catholicism, and the westernisation of others who did not. As Kallistos Ware describes this situation: "However great their desire to remain loyal Orthodox, most of them looked at theology to a greater or lesser extent through western spectacles."[96] For those who could not afford to be educated in Western institutions, the situation was bleak. The Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople closed in the early seventeenth century, and no schools existed outside of large towns. Such educational disparity resulted in illiteracy and ignorance among both clergy and laity; a situation noted by an Englishman named Sir Paul Ricaut who made reference to the "Ignorance in their Churches occasioned through Poverty in the Clergy" on his travels in the East in 1678.[97] Indeed, once the words of the liturgy were memorised, a priest's education was generally completed. This decrease in intellectual endeavours among Eastern Christians was coupled with an increase in the influence of Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries and theology. The extent of this influence is illustrated in the person of Cyril Lucaris, Ecumenical Patriarch from 1620-38. In 1629, he published a treatise on theology which was decidedly Calvinist in its teaching. While this Confession was condemned by the synod in Constantinople in 1638, the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople demonstrated such Western Protestant sympathies illustrates the decree of influence which Western missionaries had on the Eastern Church.[98]

The situation on Mount Athos, the centre of hesychastic spirituality, was somewhat different. Mount Athos was accorded special status by Ottoman sultans in the fifteenth century, meaning that life changed very little on the Holy Mountain during the first years of Ottoman rule. The renaissance of hesychasm in the fourteenth century was still in evidence in the late fifteenth century, as made evident in the influence Mount Athos had on the spirituality of St. Nil Sorskij during his stay from 1465-78. However, despite the continued existence of hesychasm on Athos, the late fifteenth century also brought with it the seeds of deterioration which took root in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The fact that Athos was given protection by the Ottoman Sultans, and that Athos was geographically isolated, meant that the Holy Mountain became a place of refuge in the fifteenth century for those who found themselves in need of respite from the deteriorating conditions in the rest of the Ottoman empire. Consequently, for many seekers survival and preservation of earthly goods replaced the cultivation of heavenly contemplation as the reason for taking the monastic habit.[99] While most of the monks were willing to extend their help in this regard, it is of no surprise that such an action necessarily led to the partial deterioration of spiritual life.

Added to this pressure, the monasteries of Athos faced ever-increasing taxation by their Ottoman protectors; a situation which caused many monasteries to focus their attention on the accumulation of capital to pay off their massive debt, and reinforced the deteriorating spiritual conditions on the Holy Mountain. That this deterioration had occurred by the end of the sixteenth century is evident from the 1574 Typikon of Patriarch Jeremiah II written for the Athonite monks. In this document, the Patriarch elucidates a number of violations of monastic practice occurring on Athos. For instance, monks were distilling and drinking spirits, indulging in "gossip, slander, [and] abuse of their neighbours," allowing women into monasteries, and practising somewhat spurious business activities.[100] While monks devoted to the practice of hesychasm continued within the sketes of Athos, their influence was increasingly diminished.[101] Rampant illiteracy limited the acquisition and copying of books, which subsequently limited the extent to which Athonite monasticism was influenced by the patristic ideals espoused by the hesychastic movement.[102] All in all, hesychastic influence on the Holy Mountain was in a period of decline.

Given that Mount Athos played an invaluable role in disseminating and fostering the existential spirituality of hesychasm throughout Orthodox lands, including Russia, it is not surprising that the influence of hesychasm degenerated within Russian monasticism at the same time as it degenerated on the Holy Mountain. As was the case on Athos, hesychasm did not disappear altogether in Russia. However, the aforementioned victory of the Josephites in 1504 compromised the reliance of Russian monasticism on the mystical theology promulgated by St. Sergius of Radonezh and St. Nil Sorskij. Consequently, outward asceticism replaced contemplation, and excessive formalism and ritualism replaced the Jesus Prayer with the result being a general malaise within and without the monasteries of Russia. This period of hesychastic decline occurred simultaneously with a growing trend towards westernisation within Russia that would reach a fevered pitch in the eighteenth century under the rule of Tsar Peter the Great. The degree to which monasticism in Russia ceased to carry a strong voice in favour of Russian Orthodoxy's Byzantine heritage is illustrated by the increasing Western influence over West Russia's academies and theology. Already by 1591 four Western Russian bishops, all former monks, had placed their allegiance with the bishop of Rome despite the efforts of a monk from the Trans-Volga tradition named Artemii to defend Orthodox tradition.[103] Added to that, Peter Mogila (1596-1647), a monk from Kiev's Monastery of the Caves, produced The Orthodox Confession. While this treatise was intended to be a handbook of Orthodox theology, it was "little more than a compilation or adaptation of Latin material, presented in Latin style."[104] Despite its clear Latin influence, the ecclesiastical hierarchies of both Russia and Constantinople enthusiastically endorsed The Orthodox Confession. Mogila also established the Kievan Academy, which was highly influenced by Western theology, and as the seventeenth century wore on, the Kievan Academy became the model for similar academic institutions throughout the rest of Russia.[105] This trend towards westernisation, when coupled with the fractured state of Russian monasticism, illustrates the degree to which hesychasm had declined in the Russian Church.

Hesychasm in the 18th and 19th Centuries: The Renewal of Mystical Theology
Therefore, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries initiated a period of darkness for hesychasm in the Eastern Church. The eighteenth century proved to be a period when this trend was reversed, and once again Mount Athos was the setting for another renaissance of hesychasm. Interestingly, this renaissance occurred at a time when European Enlightenment thinking was making inroads onto the Holy Mountain through the person of Eugenios Voulgaris (1716-1806). As was noted above, the Greek Church of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries found itself in somewhat dire straits due to the lack of available educational opportunities. Better educated Protestant and Catholic missionaries had made inroads among the Orthodox faithful, and the incentive to convert to Islam was an ever-present threat. In an effort to strengthen Orthodoxy against the spread of Islam, Protestantism, and Catholicism, Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople (ruled 1748-51; 1752-54) endeavoured to create an educational academy to foster religious and philosophical learning. Given the position of Mount Athos as a place of refuge from Ottoman rule, Cyril V decided on Vatopedi monastery on Athos as the most favourable location for this academy of learning in 1753, and Eugenios Voulgaris was chosen as the school's chief teacher. Voulgaris was a Greek theologian who had been deeply influenced by the modern writings of Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, and Wolff, as well as the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus.[106] He had already introduced the study of modern philosophy in some isolated Greek schools in the 1740s, and was eager to do the same on the Holy Mountain.[107] Within five years, the school had grown to over two hundred students, though the rest of Athos viewed the Athonite Academy with great suspicion. Despite the fact that Voulgaris appeared to have some appreciation of hesychast theology[108], many of the monks of Mount Athos felt Voulgaris' teaching to be irreconcilable with Orthodox theology and monastic life. By 1761, the school was finally closed. While moral and spiritual life, as well as intellectual activity on Athos had deteriorated to some degree in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the reaction of the monks to modern philosophical thought illustrates their continued unwillingness to depart from the traditions of the Church. As such, it is not surprising that a movement emerged in the latter half of the eighteenth century which endeavoured to elevate Orthodox tradition once again to a position of prominence.

Therefore, just as in the fourteenth century, two different schools of thought emerged within the Greek Church. Among Greek intellectuals were those who saw rationalistic Western Enlightenment thinking as a means of strengthening the Greek nation to become liberated from Turkish domination. In reaction to this infiltration of Western ideas, a number of monks emphasised that true strength and liberation could only come through a return to the teachings of the Fathers. The Kollyvades, as these monks were known, emerged in the latter eighteenth century, and from the ranks of this movement came two of the most prominent and influential persons in the renaissance of hesychasm on the Holy Mountain and beyond - St. Macarios of Corinth (1731-1805) and St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (1749-1809). The Kollyvades movement developed due to controversies on Athos regarding the performance of memorial services on Sundays, and the issue of frequent communion.[109] Despite the fact that the rules which governed liturgical observance forbade memorial services on Sundays, these rules were ignored within some Athonite monasteries to the disapproval of those Kollyvades monks who insisted on traditional observance. The Kollyvades monks similarly disapproved of the Athonite tradition of infrequent communion.[110] According to one Kollyvades, St. Macarios of Corinth, this practice of infrequent communion violated Scripture, patristic teaching, and the ruling of Church synods which were all in favour of frequent communion. Underlying both of these issues was the desire of the Kollyvades monks to return to the traditional roots of Orthodox Christianity. As such, these monks not only emphasised the importance of traditional liturgical observance, but also the importance of recovering the rich mystical heritage of Eastern Orthodoxy.[111] That this was so is made event in the life of the aforementioned St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain. Before becoming a monk on Mount Athos, Nicodemos came into contact with five Kollyvades monks who had been exiled from the Holy Mountain by their opponents - St. Macarios of Corinth, St. Arsenios of Paros, Silvestros of Caesarea, as well as two priest-monks, Gregory and Niphon. Despite the fact that members of the Kollyvades movement were forced off the Holy Mountain, this dispersion resulted in the dissemination of Kollyvades teaching throughout Greece and the Balkans, thus creating something of a renaissance of Orthodox spirituality in these areas.[112] That Nicodemos was so influenced by members of the Kollyvades movement demonstrates the influence which this movement had. These monks introduced Nicodemos to hesychastic spirituality, fostering a desire within Nicodemos to pursue ceaseless prayer and union with God on the Holy Mountain. Finally in 1775 at the age of 26, with the blessing of his spiritual directors, Nicodemos arrived at the monastery of Dionysiou on Athos to cultivate the hesychastic practice of inner prayer.

While on Athos, Nicodemos devoted himself intensely to hesychastic practices, and in so doing, he garnered the respect and admiration of monks and laity alike who came to him for spiritual direction. Gerasimos Micragiannanitis of Athos, a biographer of Nicodemos who based his biography on the testimony of Euthymios, a contemporary of Nicodemos, described Nicodemos' spiritual accomplishments in these words which deserve full quotation:

Through this blessed way of life [Nicodemos] became full of brightness, light and sanctity. From here, like another Moses, he ascended the mountain of the virtues and entered the glorious dawn of spiritual contemplation, and saw, as far as possible for man to see, the invisible God, heard ineffable words, and received the real illumination of grace, immaterial effulgences and inspirations of the Paraclete. He attained to theosis and became blessed and most God-like, an angel with a body, an inspired mystic with heavenly knowledge, a most accurate revealer of the life of the Spirit, conveying and making clear to us through 'the word of grace' its fruits and blessings, of which he was full.[113]

Nicodemos' example of hesychastic spirituality greatly influenced the Holy Mountain. Monks from all over Athos came to him for spiritual direction, and Nicodemos was invited by monks from the monasteries of Athos to stay with them. As such, Nicodemos was a key figure in the renaissance of hesychasm which took place on the Holy Mountain in the eighteenth century.

However, it was his publishing activities which allowed for the renewal of hesychasm throughout the Orthodox world. In 1777, Nicodemos was approached by Macarios of Corinth to complete and edit a collection of writings by various Eastern Fathers from the fourth to the fourteenth century entitled The Philokalia, meaning "love of the beautiful."[114] Having learned ancient Greek and Latin at the Evangeliki school in Smyrna, Nicodemos was more than capable for this task. He found various manuscripts throughout the libraries of Mount Athos, and proceeded to correct the texts philologically through comparison of texts.[115] As well, he provided brief biographies of each Father contained in The Philokalia, and wrote the prologue. In 1782, The Philokalia was published in Venice. While Nicodemos was one of the most productive writers of his time[116], The Philokalia ranks as one of the most important works for the renewal of hesychasm throughout the Orthodox world. Nicodemos' Prologue to The Philokalia illustrates the fact that the renewal of Orthodox mystical theology was foremost in his mind. He describes the compilation in the following words;

This Book is a treasury of inner wakefulness, the safeguard of the mind, the mystical school of mental prayer. This Book is an excellent compendium of practical spiritual science, the unerring guide of contemplation, the Paradise of the Fathers, the golden chain of virtues. This Book is the frequent converse with Jesus, the clarion for recalling Grace, and in a word, the very instrument of theosis.[117]

Interestingly, Nicodemos stresses in his introduction that the works contained in The Philokalia are not meant for monks alone, but also for the benefit of laypeople.

Formerly, many, even of those who lived in the world, both kings themselves and their subjects, and who were daily under the strains of myriads of secular cares and concerns, had one essential work, to pray unceasingly in their heart. Today, as a result of negligence and ignorance, this practice is extremely rare, not only among those living in the world, but even among the monks themselves who live in quiet.[118]

It is clear that Nicodemos' aim was the rejuvenation of hesychasm among Orthodox of all vocations, and he saw such a renewal as the necessary corollary of effectively creating a strong Church to combat the growing westernisation and persecution under Ottoman rule.[119]

Therefore, the latter half of the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century witnessed the rise of hesychasm once again on the Holy Mountain. The question that must be answered is the degree to which this renaissance affected the rest of the Greek Church. One important means of ascertaining the degree of religious commitment is by examining the neomartyrs who were put to death for their faith. Between 1453-1699, sixty-six Orthodox Christians were martyred by their Muslim overlords. However, between 1700 - 1867, over one hundred Christians were martyred, with fifty-five being put to death between 1800 - 1867 alone. As Demetrios J. Constantelos suggests, the existence of these neomartyrs, whose numbers significantly increased in the late eighteenth and into the mid-nineteenth centuries, "attests to a revival in the Greek Orthodox Church."[120] Indeed, in 1794 Nicodemos himself exhorted all Orthodox Christians to not allow their persecutors to "steal from you the treasure of your holy Faith," telling them that "by having Jesus, you have gained all earthly and heavenly things."[121] Given the sharp rise in the number of martyrs during this period, it appears that Nicodemos' exhortation did not go unheeded.

Finally, this religious awakening among the Greeks provided the necessary foundation for the independence of Greece from Turkish domination.[122] While it cannot be doubted that the increase in secular Enlightenment thinking in Greece played a key role in the final independence of Greece through its emphasis on revolution, the fact remains that the renaissance of hesychasm prevented fewer Orthodox from converting to Islam at a time when extraordinary social and economic pressure to convert was present.[123] One of Nicodemos' key purposes in publishing The Philokalia, as well as his numerous other works, was to create a religious renewal which would strengthen the Church against the inroads being made by Muslims, Protestants, and Catholics. The religious renewal which accompanied his publishing efforts accomplished just that. When revolution broke in 1821, it was largely only Orthodox Christians who joined in the struggle. Those who had converted to Islam, or to Catholicism, did not.[124] As such, it would appear that the renaissance of hesychasm in the eighteenth and nineteenth century led not only to the religious renewal of the Greek Church, but it provided the Church with the necessary strength to finally pursue independence.

This renewal of hesychasm on Mount Athos and throughout Greece also made its way onto Russian soil. However, just as Western Enlightenment thinking inundated the Greek Church in the eighteenth century, eighteenth century Russia likewise found itself in the midst of rampant westernisation due to the influence of Tsar Peter the Great (reigned 1682-1725). Peter the Great viewed Western political and ecclesiastical organisation with envy, and sought to bring such Western ideals to Russia. As such, in 1721 Peter issued The Spiritual Regulation which abolished the office of the Patriarch of Moscow, and put in place a Synod to govern ecclesiastical affairs; such a move was intentionally directed to bring Russian Orthodox administration more in line with that in Protestant countries.[125] Under his rule, ecclesiastical schools were decidedly Western in perspective[126], and monasteries were ordered to cease from studying or copying books.[127] From Peter's pragmatic perspective, monks contributed very little to society, which led Peter to clamp down on the number of new monasteries. As he put it, "[The monks] say pray and everyone prays. What profit does society get from that?"[128] Peter's successors, Anne (reigned 1730-40), Elizabeth (reigned 1741-62), and Catherine II (reigned 1762-96), continued Peter's elevation of Western secularism, and anti-monastic laws appeared. Indeed, while there were 1200 monasteries in 1700, only 452 were in existence in 1800.[129]

Remarkably, despite these anti-monastic policies, eighteenth century Russia witnessed to a renewal of hesychasm which was directly connected to the renewal taking place on Athos at this time. The person most responsible for this renaissance of hesychast spirituality was Paisii Velichkovskii (1722-94).[130] From the age of seventeen, Paisii was filled with an overwhelming desire to enter the monastic life. In 1741, he was tonsured at the Monastery of the Ascension near Kiev, but was forced to leave after the monastery was closed. After spending a brief sojourn at the Kievan Monastery of the Caves, Paisii decided to leave for Moldavia and Wallachia to escape the suppression of monasteries in Russian territory. He made his way to the hermitage of Cirnul, where he learned inner prayer through the example of his fellow monks. Paisii's biographer, Mytrofan, described Paisii's time at Cirnul:

Dwelling there among those true ascetics he cultivated in his heart the keeping of God's commandments and the diligent practice of moral virtues and constant prayer; and shedding many tears he blossomed and shone forth with divine radiance of the mind, which filled his soul with ineffable joy and roused him to longing for spiritual struggles and utter solitude.[131]

Filled with a desire to find a starets, or spiritual director, who could lead him on to further spiritual heights, Paisii left for Mount Athos just as St. Nil Sorsky had done three centuries previously.

Unfortunately, Paisii arrived at Mount Athos before the renaissance of hesychasm under Nicodemos, and he was unable to find an adequate spiritual director. Rather than leaving the Holy Mountain, Paisii decided to live in solitude. While in solitude, Paisii immersed himself in the teachings of the Greek Fathers, and practised the Jesus Prayer. Before too long a number of Russian and Slavic monks approached him to become their spiritual director. Their numbers grew to such a size that they were forced to buy the Cell of Elijah the Prophet where they built cells and a church. Having been educated in Greek, Paisii came to notice certain mistakes in the Slavonic texts of patristic writers. He soon made it a priority to correct these patristic texts, a priority which manifested itself throughout the rest of his life.

In 1763, twelve years before Nicodemos arrived on Athos, Paisii left Athos for Moldavia with sixty monks. His biographer, Mytrofan, describes his reasoning for leaving Athos: "[His desire was to] enlighten with his teaching those who sat in darkness of ignorance and bring them to understanding through the correction and translation anew from the Greek into his own language of the theological books of the fathers."[132] It was this translating activity which proved to influence a great renaissance of monastic life on Russian soil. Near the end of Paisii's life, Nicodemos published The Philokalia. Paisii immediately realised the importance of this collection of ascetic writers for Russian monasticism, and as such he translated The Philokalia into Slavonic in 1793, a mere eleven years after Nicodemos published it in Greek. Calling it Dobrotolubiye, or love of good, Paisii's translation unleashed a great return to contemplative thinking within Russian monasticism. The writings of the ascetic Fathers were once again elevated to a place of prominence, leading to a great revival of hesychasm within the monastic institutions.[133] The popularity and influence of the Dobrotolubiye is illustrated by fact that two more editions were published in the nineteenth century; in 1822 and 1832. Added to his translation of The Philokalia, Paisii also translated the writings of St. Nil Sorsky, thus appealing to a golden age of Russian monasticism as a model for renewal.[134]

Paisii's emphasis on hesychast spirituality had an incredible influence on Russian monasticism, not only through the Dobrotolubiye, but also through the number of his disciples who became superiors and starets in monasteries throughout Russia. The sheer number of monasteries in Russia affected by those who either came under the direction of Paisii, or who came under the direction of one of his disciples is astounding. According to one count, over 107 monasteries in Russia came under the influence of Paisii's teachings.[135] Through the emphasis by these disciples of Paisii on returning to the hesychasm of Mount Athos and St. Nil Sorsky, Russian monasticism witnessed great growth throughout the nineteenth century. While only 452 monasteries existed in 1810, over 800 existed by 1900.[136] Through their work, Paisii's disciples instituted "a great revival of spiritual life" within the monasteries of Russia, where "interest and love for the reading and study of books were aroused."[137] More importantly, the influence of the Dobrotolubiye was not restricted only to the monasteries. Lev Gillet writes; "It was through this collection of texts that not only monks but simple village people became familiar with the Fathers and with the Jesus Prayer."[138]

This revival is best illustrated by taking a brief look at St. Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833), the Optino starets, as well as the popular book The Way of a Pilgrim (published 1884). Of all monks in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, St. Seraphim most clearly reflected the precepts of hesychasm as embodied in The Philokalia, which he was familiar with. Indeed, Paul Evdokimov refers to St. Seraphim as "an icon of Orthodox spirituality."[139] Seraphim emphasised the importance of the Jesus Prayer, and made it clear that hesychasm was not meant for monks alone, but also for those in the world.[140] His teaching on this matter is illustrated most clearly in a conversation Seraphim had with a layman by the name of Nicholas Motavilov. After hearing Seraphim emphasise the importance of having a vision of God to vouchsafe the filling of the Spirit, Motavilov writes;

"How I long to understand completely!" [Motavilov speaking.]
Then Father Seraphim gripped me firmly by the shoulders and said: "My friend, both of us, at this moment, are in the Holy Spirit, you and I. Why won't you look at me?"
"I can't look at you, Father, because the light flashing from your eyes and face is brighter than the sun and I'm dazzled!"
"Don't be afraid, friend of God, you yourself are shining just like I am; you too are now in the fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see me as you do."[141]

Seraphim later goes on to state that the existential theology of hesychasm is available to all: "The fact that I am a monk and you are a layman doesn't make any difference."[142]

The fact that laypeople took Seraphim's exhortation to heart is illustrated by the sheer number of seekers who came to him for spiritual direction. It is also illustrated by the number of seekers who went to the starets at Optino for spiritual direction. Optino had a direct connection with Paisii as a disciple of his, Theophanes, settled there in 1800. As well, the first of the celebrated starets, Leonid, was instructed by a disciple of Paisii's at another monastery. Throughout the nineteenth century, three celebrated starets - Leonid (1768-1841), Macarius (1788-1860), and Ambrose (1812-1891) - had an incredible effect on the spiritual lives of the Russian people.[143] Counted among their lay-disciples were the celebrated authors Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Leo Tolstoy, as well as countless other lay-persons from all walks of life. Advocating unceasing prayer and the study of the Fathers, the starets of Optino worked tirelessly to publish patristic writings, including the translations of Paisii, the writings of St. Nil Sorsky, as well as many of the writers to be found in The Philokalia. These translations made their way to academies and seminaries, to bishops, priests, and to other monasteries, thus maximising their influence throughout Russia.[144]

Perhaps no other document reveals the extent of this influence than The Way of a Pilgrim.[145] Written anonymously and published in 1884, the story revolves around a pilgrim who wanders throughout Russia in search of the best means to obey St. Paul's exhortation to 'pray without ceasing' (I Thess. 5.17). Though his travels he is introduced to The Philokalia and the Jesus Prayer. As he wandered throughout Russia studying The Philokalia, the Jesus Prayer slowly began to enter his heart whereby the Prayer formulated itself to the heartbeat of the Pilgrim. In the process, he comes across a number of other people of all walks of life who have come to recognise the importance of practising the Jesus Prayer as a means of achieving union with God. At one point the Pilgrim writes;

What I have, every man can have. All that is necessary is to descend in silence into the depths of one's heart and call on the name of Jesus Christ frequently. In this way one can experience interior light and many things will become clear to him, even the mysteries of the kingdom of God.[146]

Such a statement illustrates a point about The Way of a Pilgrim made by George Fedotov that the hesychast tradition, re-introduced into Russia by Paisii and his disciples, "was not held within the confines of monasteries," but was clearly influential throughout all of Russian society.[147]

This revival of hesychasm within the Russian Orthodox Church continued right up to the time of the Revolution in 1917. Optino's influence continued unabated up to the end of the nineteenth century, and other mystics continued to be influential throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth centuries. For instance, Father John of Kronstadt (1829-1908), a parish priest, worked towards the spread of hesychastic spirituality through his preaching and writing. His work introduced a new type of 'spiritual priest' intent on focusing on spiritual discipline.[148] More importantly, Theophan the Recluse (1815-1894), a monk at Vyshen, greatly influenced the spread of hesychasm throughout Russia through his translation of the Dobrotolubiye from Slavonic into Russian in 1877, with reprints made in 1883, 1885, 1905, and 1913. Added to this translation activity, his numerous letters of direction to his disciples reveal Theophane's emphasis on hesychasm being accessible to monk and layperson alike:

Nobody can dispense with inner prayer...True, there is spiritual prayer linked with oral or exterior prayer, whether at home or in church, and there is also spiritual prayer, by itself, without any special outward form or bodily posture; but in both cases the essence of the thing is the same. Both forms are obligatory for the layman as well as the monk.[149]

Given the above examples, it is clear that hesychast spirituality, as brought into Russia through Paisii's disciples, was tremendously influential in the revival of an experiential theology both within and outside monastic walls. It enabled much of Russian Orthodoxy to emerge in the nineteenth century from the pressures of westernisation exerted upon it throughout the eighteenth century with a renewed interest in patristics and in hesychast theology.

Hesychasm in the 20th Century: Decline and Renewal
However, despite the fact that the nineteenth century witnessed a great renaissance of hesychasm throughout Orthodox lands, the early twentieth century saw a reversal of this trend on Mount Athos. While the nineteenth century saw great growth in the number of monks on the Holy Mountain largely due to the renaissance of hesychasm in that century, the early twentieth century saw a sharp decline in the number of monks. There are a couple of reasons for this demise. First, the attempts by the Greek government to limit Russian pilgrims after 1913, combined with the 1917 Russian revolution led to a great decrease in the number of monks from Russia.[150] Second, the post-World War II era saw a continuous decline in the number of new postulants from Greece or any other country.[151] With such decline, the population of the Holy Mountain dropped from 7432 in 1920 to 1862 in 1970, and concern was expressed about the continued existence of monasticism on Mount Athos.

However, there is indication that this decline is reversing itself. Coincidentally, this reversal in trends has been linked to yet another renewal in hesychasm on the Holy Mountain. In 1972, the number of monks on Athos increased over the number recorded in 1971; something which had not occurred since 1913.[152] Since that time, the population of Athos has consistently increased. While there were 1146 monks in 1972, there were approximately 1500 monks by 1990.[153] Added to this increase in numbers is the shift in the average age of the monks of Athos. Whereas monks over the age of sixty made up a large proportion of the total population prior to 1972, many more monks under the age forty have taken up residence on the Holy Mountain, and by 1990 these younger monks were in the majority.[154] In large part, this renewal has been caused by the increase in the number of outstanding personalities who have made their way from the sketes on Athos to the cenobitic monasteries to become superiors and spiritual directors.[155] One notable example is that of Fr. Ephraim, a hesychast who left his hermitage to become superior of Philotheou monastery in 1973 when there were only nine monks. Interestingly, by the late 1970s, Philotheou contained over seventy monks with a steady influx of new recruits.[156] Stavronikita monastery was likewise renewed through the presence of hesychast hermits who took up residence in the monastery. In other words, the present renewal of monastic life on Athos is intricately connected to the renewal of hesychasm within the cenobitic monasteries, and the transformation from this renewal has been remarkable. Philip Sherrard describes the current situation on Athos in the following words: "From being a community whose members are old and dwindling, it has become a community with a growing intake and in which one is more conscious of youth than of age...It thrives with vitality."[157]

Interestingly, this renewal of monastic life, and hence hesychasm, has spilled over onto North American soil. This renewal has occurred largely through the work of the aforementioned Father Ephraim, who left the Holy Mountain to foster monastic life among Orthodox Americans. The result has been astounding. Since 1995, Father Ephraim has founded sixteen monasteries in North America, including two in southern Ontario, and the response to these foundations has been phenomenal. A collection of his sayings on the spiritual life, entitled Counsels from the Holy Mountain, have recently been published in English by St. Anthony's Monastery in Arizona, where Ephraim currently lives. Father Ephraim's reputation among those who follow his teachings is summarised by the writer of the prologue to this collection of his sayings. In this prologue, Ephraim is described "a genuine teacher of the spiritual life and a reliable guide for the Christian's journey towards rebirth, since he himself has experienced and learned the divine."[158] The sayings of Ephraim which follow this prologue demonstrate the influence of hesychastic spirituality on Ephraim's teaching:

The Watchful Fathers of the desert teach that through various kinds of ascesis, praxis [practice of the virtues], contemplation, and the moral and spiritual philosophy of watchfulness and prayer, the nous [defined in this book as the energy of the soul] of man is purified, illumined, and perfected, and subsequently it acquires the gift of theology - not academic theology which the theologians in universities possess, but theology proceeding and gushing forth from the divine spring from which the rivers of true, divine theology eternally flow forth.[159]

Through this emphasis on hesychastic spirituality, Father Ephraim has created something of a renewal of monastic and spiritual life within North American Orthodoxy. In a society where materialism and secular thought predominates, the existential spirituality of hesychasm seems to have struck a chord.

Just as the early twentieth century was not favourable to hesychasm in Greece, the situation was likewise unfavourable to hesychasm in Russia during this same period. The renaissance of hesychasm in nineteenth-century Russia has already been noted above. However, the 1917 Russian revolution drastically changed this situation. Almost immediately, the new communist government undertook a program of persecution against monasteries, a fact which can be attested to the sharp decline in the number of monasteries in Russia. Whereas there were between 1000-1500 monasteries in Russia in 1914, only 38 continued to exist in 1941.[160] By 1988, only 21 monasteries still survived.[161] Added to that, many of Russia's brightest thinkers were forced to leave the country.

It is this 'Russian emigration' which has proven to be most beneficial for the spread of Orthodox mystical theology throughout the West. At the time of the Revolution, the Church was still very much in the midst of the spiritual renewal, and this was evidenced by the renaissance of patristic study and translation in the educational institutions.[162] When the revolution forced these scholars to emigrate from Russia, they brought the key features of this patristic renaissance with them. Indeed, key scholars such as Serge Bulgakov (1871-1944), George Fedotov (1886-1951), Vladimir Lossky (1903-58), Alexander Schmemann (1921-83), John Meyendorff (1926-92), and Georges Florovsky began to teach at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, and there made "an impact upon not only Orthodox in the New World but upon other leading Christian groups."[163] These scholars, particularly Georges Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky, sought to bring about a revival of a "living patristic theology" throughout Orthodoxy, and throughout other Christian traditions.[164] In Lossky's own words; "Far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism support and complete each other. One is impossible without the other."[165] The existential emphasis of hesychasm is unmistakably present in these words.

The result of this emigration has been the spread of Eastern mysticism throughout the West, even among non-Orthodox Christians. As Lev Gillet wrote, "it is within the Russian emigration that a veritable renaissance of the Jesus Prayer has taken place."[166] The Russian classic, The Way of a Pilgrim, has also been extremely popular in the West, finding followers from all Christian traditions.[167] In response to this renaissance of hesychasm on Western soil, a complete English translation of The Philokalia has been undertaken since 1979. While a previous translation of The Philokalia was in existence since 1951, this translation was based on Theophan the Recluse's Russian translation and only contained about a third of the total material in the Greek Philokalia. The hope of the translators of this earlier volume was that another translation based on the entire Greek version would be made available in the future. As they wrote in the introduction to their translation, "we can only hope that this work [of making a complete translation of The Philokalia] will one day be achieved; it might well be one of the greatest single contributions to the perpetuating in the West what is highest in the Christian tradition."[168] In response to this call, four out of five volumes have now been translated of a complete version of The Philokalia. Added to this publishing activity, The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius was founded in Britain in 1928 to promote better relations between East and West, and its work has exposed many non-Orthodox to Orthodox spirituality.[169] It would appear that hesychasm has not only rejuvenated the spiritual lives of Orthodox Christians in the West, but it has become a focal point for ecumenical dialogue.

Conclusion: Hesychasm and the Preservation of Orthodox Distinctiveness
The reason why hesychasm has played an important role of rejuvenating Orthodox Christianity throughout the centuries is because of its existential emphasis which is based on patristic teaching. Since its emergence from the deserts of Egypt, Palestine, and Sinai in the fourth century, ascetic Fathers emphasised the necessity of achieving an experiential union with God. While theosis was understood to be the goal of the Christian life from very early on in the Church's tradition, it was these ascetics from the fourth century through to the fourteenth century who developed a spirituality which viewed ceaseless prayer as a tool towards achieving theosis. For these hesychasts, the entire purpose of the Incarnation was to allow for the deification of humanity through a direct experience of God himself, for they believed that through union with God one is transformed to be God-like. As the hesychastic tradition developed, increasing attention was placed upon Jesus' Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. This Transfiguration manifested the uncreated light of the Godhead to those disciples who followed Jesus up Tabor, and it transformed them in the process. St. Gregory Palamas described the Transfiguration this way:

Christ was transfigured, not by the addition of something He was not, nor by a transformation into something He was not, but by the manifestation to His disciples of what He really was. He opened their eyes so that instead of being blind they could see. While He Himself remained the same, they could now see Him as other than He had appeared to them formerly.[170]

According to the hesychasts, it was through a vision of this uncreated light, the pinnacle of mystical experience, that the one is united with God, for through this vision one is transformed "into light," in the words of St. Symeon the New Theologian.

The fourteenth century proved to be very important for the future of this hesychastic movement, as was seen within this paper. Forced by anti-hesychastic humanist intellectuals to defend the orthodoxy of its spirituality, the hesychastic movement under Palamas formulated a theological justification for hesychasm by appealing to the wealth of patristic sources which supported the hesychastic movement's emphasis on union with God while still preserving God's ineffability. His was an argument based on Orthodox tradition, and his writings are inundated by references to past Church Fathers which were used as evidence for the orthodoxy of hesychastic spirituality. Whereas his humanist opponents appealed to Hellenistic rationalism, akin to the theological scholasticism which was gaining ascendance in the West, the hesychasts appealed to the very roots of Orthodox Christianity to prove their case. For the hesychastic movement, theology was not a discipline which could be subjected to the rigours of rationalistic explanation. Rather, the hesychasts emphasised that traditional Orthodox theology was existential; that it was something to be lived and experienced. Salvation was not a matter of intellectual achievement, as Barlaam seemed to imply, but was a matter of participating in God with the totality of one's being - soul and body. In Palamas' mind, to proclaim otherwise implied the rejection of over one thousand years of Church tradition, and would lead to the death of Eastern Christian theological distinctiveness in the face of increasing westernisation.

Thus, the victory of the hesychastic movement in 1351 preserved this distinctive Eastern Christian ethos in the face of mounting pressure by the humanists to adopt a form of Western theological scholasticism. Interestingly, it was the hesychastic movement which continued to preserve this ethos throughout the seven centuries which followed the hesychastic controversy. During this span of time, Eastern Christianity faced the continued onslaught of westernisation, secularisation, persecution, inward divisiveness, as well as proselytising by Muslims, Catholics, and Protestants; all of which threatened the continued preservation of Eastern Christian theological distinctiveness. However, despite these tumultuous times, the hesychastic emphasis on an existential spirituality based on a strong patristic heritage maintained this distinctive Eastern ethos, thus allowing for continued renewal of the Church despite the presence of adverse circumstances.

It is important to note that these periods of renewal all began within the Eastern Church's monastic institutions; a fact which illustrates the prominent place which monasticism has in the East. During times when Eastern Christendom was faced pressure to reject its roots - as was the case in fourteenth-century Byzantium and under the westernising rule of Tsar Peter the Great in Russia - monks within the East's monastic institutions consistently endeavoured to remind the Church of its rich patristic past. Therefore, it is no surprise th

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

To Be Transformed By Vision Of Uncreated Light--Notes

Post by Kollyvas »

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/axismundi/2 ... tnotes.php

To Be Transformed by a Vision of Uncreated Light:
A Survey on the Influence of the Existential Spirituality of Hesychasm on Eastern Orthodox History
(Footnotes)
-by Gregory K. Hillis
1st year, Graduate Studies
McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario
January 10, 2002

[1] As quoted in Valentine Zander, St. Seraphim of Sarov, Gariel Anne, trans. (London: SPCK, 1975), pp. 90, 93.

[2] The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976), p. 8.

[3] As quoted in Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, Asheleigh Moorhouse, trans. (London: The Faith Press, 1963), p. 35.

[4] "The Nicene Creed," in Readings in the History of Christian Theology: Vol. 1 - From its Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation, William C. Placher, ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), p. 53.

[5] Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), p. 7.

[6] St. Athanasius the Great, The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus, Robert C. Gregg, trans. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1980), pp. 30-2.

[7] Ibid., p. 32.

[8] Ibid., p. 39.

[9] For a description of the activities of Pachomius, a monk generally credited with the development of the cenobitic life, see Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert a City, pp. 7-11, 20-24.

[10] G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware, "Introduction," in The Philokalia, Vol. 1 (London: Faber & Faber, 1979), p. 14.

[11] John Meyendorff, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, Adele Fiske, trans. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), p. 21.

[12] Evagrius the Solitary, "On Prayer: One Hundred and Fifty-Three Texts," in The Philokalia, Vol. 1, p. 60.

[13] Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, p. 95.

[14] Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 201.

[15] St. Diadochus of Photiki, "On Spiritual Knowledge and Discrimination: One Hundred Texts," in The Philokalia, Vol. 1, p. 259.

[16] Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, p. 97.

[17] See St. Symeon the New Theologian, The Discourses, C.J. deCatanzaro, trans. (Toronto: Paulist Press, 1980), pp. 245-6 [XXI.4].

[18] Ibid., p. 246.

[19] St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Colm Luibheid and Norman Russell, trans. (Toronto: Paulist Press, 1982), p. 270.

[20] Kallistos Ware, "The Origins of the Jesus Prayer: Diadochus, Gaza, Sinai," in The Study of Spirituality, Cheslyn Jones, et al., eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 182.

[21] Nikiphoros the Monk, "On Watchfulness and the Guarding of the Heart," in The Philokalia, Vol. IV, p. 206.

[22] Kallistos Ware, "The Hesychasts: Gregory of Sinai, Gregory Palamas, Nicolas Cabasilas," in The Study of Spirituality, p. 246.

[23] St. Gregory of Sinai, "On Stillness: Fifteen Texts," in The Philokalia, Vol. IV, p. 264.

[24] Ibid., pp. 264-5.

[25] Ibid., p. 263.

[26] "On Prayer: Seven Texts," pp. 285-6.

[27] As quoted in Kallistos Ware, "The Jesus Prayer in St. Gregory of Sinai," in Eastern Churches Review, Vol. 4, 1972, p. 6.

[28] Indeed, Irenee Hausherr, an eminent scholar of hesychasm, writes, Gregory of Sinai "is the one directly responsible for the great popularity of hesychasm and its method." See The Name of Jesus, Charles Cummings, trans. (Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications, 1978), p. 317.

[29] Ihor Sevcenko, "The Decline of Byzantium Seen through the Eyes of its Intellectuals," in Society and Intellectual Life in Late Byzantium (London: Variorum Reprints, 1981), p. 171.

[30] The Vision of God, p. 126.

[31] John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, George Lawrence, trans. (London: The Faith Press, 1964), p. 42.

[32] See Ibid.

[33] Ibid., p. 28.

[34] See David Balfour, "Was St. Gregory Palamas St. Gregory the Sinaite's Pupil?" in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 28.2, 1984, pp. 115-130.

[35] See Robert E. Sinkewicz, "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God in the Early Writings of Barlaam the Calabrian," in Mediaeval Studies, Vol. 44, 1982, pp. 189-90.

[36] John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 43.

[37] See Robert E. Sinkewicz, op cit., p. 201; and John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 44.

[38] Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, "The Divine Names," in The Complete Works, Colm Luibheid, trans. (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), p. 108.

[39] As quoted in St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, Nicholas Gendle, trans. (Toronto: Paulist Press, 1983), I.i, p. 25.

[40] See Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, Liandain Sherrard, trans. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984), pp. 98-9; and Daniel Rogich, "Homily 34 of Saint Gregory Palamas," in Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 33.2, 1988, p. 142.

[41] As quoted in Ibid., I.i, p. 26.

[42] See John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 127; and Robert E. Sinkewicz, op. cit., p. 231.

[43] John Meyendorff, "Introduction," in St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, p. 8.

[44] See Kallistos Ware, "God Hidden and Revealed: The Apophatic Way and the Essence-Energies Distinction," in Eastern Churches Review, 7.2, 1975, pp. 125-36 for a discussion on apophatic theology through the eyes of various Greek Fathers.

[45] The Discourses, p. 365 [XXXV.9]. Italics mine.

[46] From a dialogue entitled Theophanes. As quoted in Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 69.

[47] For further discussion on how these earlier Fathers utilised this terminology see Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, pp. 65, 68, 71, 77, 101, 107-8, &112.

[48] St. Gregory Palamas, "Topics of Natural and Theological Science on the Moral and Ascetic Life: One Hundred and Fifty Texts," in The Philokalia, Vol. IV, p. 397.

[49] Triads, III.ii.7, pp. 95-6.

[50] St. Gregory Palamas, The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, Robert E. Sinkewicz, trans. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988), p. 163.

[51] Triads, III.iii.8, p. 105.

[52] Ibid., III.iii.6, p. 104; and Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 77.

[53] St. Gregory Palamas, "The Declaration of the Holy Mountain in Defence of Those who Devoutly Practise a Life of Stillness," in The Philokalia, Vol. IV, p. 422.

[54] Ibid., pp. 423, 424.

[55] See John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 98; and Kallistos Ware, "God Hidden and revealed: the Apophatic Way and the Essence-Energies Distinction," in Eastern Churches Review, 7.2, 1975, p. 130 for a summary of the decisions of the 1351 Council of Constantinople.

[56] A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 133. Italics mine.

[57] "The Jesus Prayer in St. Gregory of Sinai," p. 7.

[58] John Meyendorff, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, p. 148.

[59] George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind (II): The Middle Ages - 13th to the 15th Centuries, John Meyendorff, ed. (Belmont, Mass.: Nordland Publishing Co., 1975), p. 24.

[60] See Francis J. Thomson, "Slavonic Translations Available in Muscovy: The Cause of Old Russia's Intellectual Silence and a Contributory Factor to Muscovite Cultural Autarky," in Christianity and the Eastern Slavs (Vol. I): Slavic Cultures in the Middle Ages, Boris Gasparov and Olga Raevsky-Hughes, eds. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 184-5.

[61] See George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, p. 24.

[62] As quoted in Pierre Kovalevsky, Saint Sergius and Russian Spirituality, W. Elias Jones, trans. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976), p. 57.

[63] Ibid., p. 121. The main source for studying St. Sergius is a biography by Epiphanius the Wise, a contemporary of Sergius', entitled "The Life, Acts and Miracles of Our Revered and Holy Father Abbot Sergius," in A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, George P. Fedotov, ed. (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1969), pp. 54-84. Apart from manuscripts copied by Sergius, no original writings by him are currently in existence.

[64] See Ibid., pp. 196-8. As Fedotov writes, while St. Sergius was not the only monk endeavouring to live the eremitic life in the fourteenth century, he was the movement's "guiding spirit." It should also be pointed out that this "monasticism of the desert" was largely located in the northern forests of Russia around the Volga River - The Northern Thebaid.

[65] "The Life, Acts and Miracles of our Revered and Holy Father Abbot Sergius," pp. 72-3. Italics mine.

[66] George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, p. 218.

[67] See George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, p. 221. See also Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon: Volume II, Anthony Gythiel, trans. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), p. 260 for a description of the relationship between Sergius and Patriarchs Kallistos and Philotheus.

[68] See George P. Fedotov, "St. Sergius: The First Hermit and Mystic," p. 52.

[69] See Sergius Bolshakoff, Russian Mystics (Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications, 1976), p. 15.

[70] We are fortunate to possess a number of Nil's writings. Some of his letters to those seeking spiritual guidance have been translated and are provided in Appendix I of George A. Maloney's study of Nil entitled Russian Hesychasm: The Spirituality of Nil Sorskij (Paris: Mouton, 1973), pp. 245-268. However, his monastic rule ("Ustav") is of great importance to this study. It can be found in "The Tradition to the Disciples," in A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, pp. 90-133.

[71] George A. Maloney, Russian Hesychasm, p. 35.

[72] See St. Nilus' "Ascetic Discourse" in The Philokalia, Vol. I, pp. 200-250.

[73] George A. Maloney, Russian Hesychasm, p. 37.

[74] Ibid., p. 39.

[75] Ibid., p. 30.

[76] See "Appendix I" in Ibid., p. 254.

[77] See Kallistos Ware, "The Jesus Prayer in St. Gregory of Sinai," p. 6.

[78] Ware described the situation this way: "Alike in the 14th and the 18th centuries, and also in our own day, the Hesychast tradition on Athos has flourished in the sketes rather than the 'ruling monasteries.'"

[79] George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, p. 269.

[80] George A. Maloney, Russian Hesychasm, p. 175. The number of Fathers that Nil quotes is based upon a calculation from both his Ustav, and an earlier smaller rule called the Predanie.

[81] Ibid., 174.

[82] St. Nil Sorskij, "The Tradition to the Disciples," p. 100.

[83] Ibid., p. 104. Italics mine.

[84] Ibid., p. 128.

[85] A Source Book for Russian History from Early Times to 1917 - Vol. 1: Early Times to the Late Seventeenth Century, George Vernadsky, ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 154.

[86] Ways of Russian Theology: Part One, Vol. V of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Richard S. Haugh, ed., Robert L. Nichols, trans. (Belmont, Mass: Nordland, 1979), p. 24.

[87] Ibid., p. 22.

[88] Sergius Bolshakoff, Russian Mystics, p. 45.

[89] This point has been made by John Meyendorff. See George A. 90). Maloney, Russian Hesychasm, p. 233.

[90] Ibid., p. 159.

[91] Ibid., p. 233. See also George P. Fedotov, A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, p. 85.

[92] Steven Runciman, The Greek Church in Captivity, p. 168.

[93] See George S. Bebis, "Introduction," in Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, A Handbook of Spiritual Council, Peter A. Chamberas, trans. (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), p. 6. See also Charles A. Frazee, The Orthodox Church and Independent Greece: 1821-1852 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 4.

[94] Steven Runciman, The Greek Church in Captivity, pp. 171, 187, 198, & 208. See also Charles Frazee, The Orthodox Church and Independent Greece, p. 3.

[95] The degree of instability in the Patriarchate is most evident in the period between 1595-1695 where there were sixty-one changes on the Patriarchal throne largely due to Turkish intervention. See Steven Runciman, The Greek Church in Captivity, p. 201. See also p. 203 where Runciman writes, "With such a situation in the Patriarchate it was difficult for the Church to maintain its constitutional rights against its Turkish masters."

[96] Ibid., p. 205.

[97] Kallistos Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 7. See also George A. Maloney, A History of Orthodox Theology Since 1453 (Belmont, Mass: Nordland, 1976), p. 100.

[98] As quoted in Steven Runciman, The Greek Church in Captivity, p. 205. The quote is from a book written by Ricaut entitled The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, Anno Christi 1678.

[99] See George A. Maloney, A History of Orthodox Theology since 1453, pp. 125-35 for more on Lucaris' theology.

[100] See Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, "'A safe and holy mountain': early Ottoman Athos," in Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism: Papers from the Twenty-eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1994, Anthony Bryer and Mary Cunningham, eds. (Brookfield, Vermont: Variorum, 1994), p. 132.

[101] The Typikon is found in Emmanuel Amand De Mendieta, Mount Athos: The Garden of the Panaghia, Michael R. Bruce, trans. (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1972), p. 109.

[102] Ibid., p. 115.

[103] Steven Runciman, The Greek Church in Captivity, p. 220.

[104] George A. Maloney, A History of Orthodox Theology since 1453, p. 32. For more on Artemii, see Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology: Part I, pp. 38-9.

[105] Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, p. 76.
Georges Florovsky, "Western Influences in Russian Theology," in Aspects of Church History, Vol. IV of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1975), p. 165.

[106] Emmanuel Amand De Mendieta, Mount Athos: The Garden of the Panaghia, p. 119.

[107] See Paschalis M. Kitromilides, "Athos and the Enlightenment," in Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, p. 259.

[108] Ibid., p. 269.

[109] On the Kollyvades movement see Ibid., pp. 121-5, and Constantine Cavernos, St. Macarios of Corinth, Vol. 2 in Modern Orthodox Saints (Belmont, Mass: The Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Inc., 1972), p. 15-22.

[110] Constantine Cavarnos, St. Macarios of Corinth, pp. 19-20.

[111] See George S. Bebis, "Introduction," in St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, Peter A. Chamberas, trans. (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), p. 12.

[112] See Constantine Cavarnos, St. Macarios of Corinth, p. 27.

[113] Gerasimos Micragiannanitis of Mount Athos, "The Life of St. Nicodemos," in Constantine Cavarnos, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, p. 77-8.

[114] See G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, "Introduction," in The Philokalia, Vol. I, p. 13.

[115] George S. Bebis, "Introduction," in A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, p. 21.

[116] Ibid., p. 17. Nicodemos authored, corrected, or published more than one hundred works.

[117] From "Selected Passages from the Introduction of the Philokalia," in Constantine Cavarnos, St. Macarios of Corinth, p. 101. Italics mine.

[118] Ibid., p. 99.

[119] See Nomikos Vaporis, "The Price of Faith: Some Reflections on Nicodemos Hagiorites and His Struggle against Islam, Together with a Translation of the 'Introduction' to His "New Martyrologion,'" in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 23.3 and 4, 1978, p. 186.

[120] "The 'Neomartyrs' as Evidence for Methods and Motives Leading to Conversion and Martyrdom in the Ottoman Empire," in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 23.3 and 4, p. 226.

[121] "Nikodemos Hagiorites' Introduction to the New Martyrologion," Nomikos Michael Vaporis, trans., in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 23.3 and 4, 1978, p. 202 and 208.

[122] See Nomikos Vaporis in "The Price of Faith: Some Reflections on Nikodemos Hagiorites and His Struggle Against Islam," pp. 186-7.

[123] Ibid., p. 187. Vaporis makes the point that the eighteenth century had witnessed a number of voluntary and involuntary mass conversions to Islam. As well, the economic and social pressures to convert to Islam were ever present.

[124] Ibid.

[125] Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, p. 117.

[126] See ibid., pp. 131-4 for more on the ecclesiastical schools.

[127] Ibid., p. 136.

[128] As quoted in ibid.

[129] Sergius Bolshakoff, Russian Mystics, p. 58.

[130] See "The Autobiography of Paisij Velyckovs'kyj," in The Life of Paisij Velyckovs'kyj, J.M.E. Featherstone, trans. (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1989). See also a biography written by a contemporary of Paisii's, Mytrofan, which is contained within this same book.

[131] "The Biography by Mytrofan," in The Life of Paisij Velyckovs'kyj, pp. 95-6.

[132] "The Biography by Mytrofan," p. 97.

[133] See Sergius Bolshakoff, Russian Mystics, p. 90.

[134] George A. Maloney, Russian Hesychasm, p. 235.

[135] See Sergii Chetverikov, Starets Paisii Velichkovskii: His Life, Teachings, and Influence on Orthodox Monasticism, Vasily Likwar and Alexander J. Lisenko, trans. (Belmont: Mass: Nordland, 1980), pp. 316-320.

[136] See Sergius Bolshakoff, Russian Mystics, pp. 100-1.

[137] Sergii Chetverikov, Starets Paisii Velichkovskii, p. 289.

[138] See The Jesus Prayer (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997), p. 77.

[139] "St. Seraphim of Sarov: An Icon of Orthodox Spirituality," in Ecumenical Review, 15.3, 1963, p. 264.

[140] George Fedotov, "St. Seraphim: Mystic and Prophet," in A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, p. 245.

[141] Motavilov's entire conversation with Seraphim is found in Valentine Zander, St. Seraphim of Sarov, pp. 83-95. The above quotation is from p. 90. Italics mine.

[142] Ibid., p. 93.

[143] See Macarius, Starets of Optino, Russian Letters of Direction: 1834-1860, Iulia De Beausobre, trans. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1975) for a collection of letters of spiritual direction by Macarius.

[144] See Sergius Bolshakoff, Russian Mystics, p 184.

[145] See The Way of a Pilgrim and The Pilgrim Continues His Way, Helen Bacovcin, trans. (Toronto: Image Books, 1978).

[146] Ibid., p. 74.

[147] See "The Pilgrim on Mental Prayer," in A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, pp. 281-2.

[148] See George Fedotov, "John of Cronstadt: A Genius of Prayer," in Ibid., p. 346.

[149] The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology, E. Kadloubovsky and E.M. Palmer, trans. (Boston: Faber and Faber, 1966), p. 53.

[150] Emmanuel Amand De Mendieta, Mount Athos, p. 142-4.

[151] Ibid., p. 148.

[152] See George I. Mantzaridis, "New Statistical Data Concerning the Monks of Mount Athos," in Social Compass, 22.1, 1975, pp. 98-9.

[153] See Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church (Toronto: Penguin Books, 1993), p. 131.

[154] See George I. Mantzaridis, "New Statistical Data Concerning the Monks of Mount Athos," pp. 102-3. See also Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 131.

[155] See Kallistos Ware, "Wolves and Monks: Life on the Holy Mountain Today," in Sobornost, 5.2, 1983, pp. 58 and 65. See also George Mantzaridis, "Mount Athos and Today's Society," in Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 26.3, 1981, pp. 232-3.

[156] See Kallistos Ware, "Wolves and Monks," pp. 57-8.

[157] "The Paths of Athos," in Eastern Churches Review, 9.1-2, 1977, p. 100.

[158] Hierotheos Vlachos, "Prologue for the English Edition," in Elder Ephraim, Counsels from the Holy Mountain (Florence, AZ: St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery, 1999), p. xii. Italics mine.

[159] Elder Ephraim, Counsels from the Holy Mountain, p. 301.

[160] See John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church,

[161] Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 162.

[162] See Nicolas Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 322, 329. See also Nicholas Lossky, "Theology and Spirituality in the Work of Vladimir Lossky," in Ecumenical Review, 51, 1999, p. 289.

[163] George A. Maloney, A History of Orthodox Theology Since 1453, p. 77.

[164] Nicolas Lossky, "The Fruitfulness and Contradictions of the Russian Emigration," in The Holy Russian Church and Western Christianity, Giuseppe Alberigo, Oscar Beozzo, and Georgy Zyablitsev, eds. (London: SCM Press, 1996), p. 69.

[165] The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 8.

[166] The Jesus Prayer, p. 86.

[167] Ibid.

[168] This was written by E. Kadloubovsky and G.E.H. Palmer. As quoted in "Introduction," The Philokalia, Vol. I, p. 13.

[169] Ibid., p. 88. Gillet mentions that the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius allowed Evelyn Underhill, as well as many other English Christians, to Orthodox spirituality.

[170] "The Declaration of the Holy Mountain in Defence of Those who Devoutly Practise a Life of Stillness," in The Philokalia, Vol. IV, p. 422.

ISSN: 1496-2798
© Axis Mundi

Post Reply