The Lord of Glory does not need the WCC

Fr. John Romanides

1. Before and after His Incarnation the Lord of Glory cured His faithful by “purifying” and “illuminating” their hearts and “glorifying” them making them partakers in His uncreated “rule,” i.e. “vasileia.” ^{[ 4 ]} Those who reach “glorification” are the prophets of the Old and New Testaments and the Fathers of the Church. Those whose hearts are being “purified” are called “private individuals (idiotes) ^{[ 5 ]}” because they are being prepared to become members of the society of “illumined” and “glorified” who since Pentecost are becoming members of the Body of Christ. For this reason Pentecost is regarded as the Birthday of the Church as the Body of Christ. The CUV document quoted in the title above may be completed by being placed within such a context and thus liberated from the Franco-Latin quest for Augustinian happiness.

2. This biblical framework is based on the cure of the human personality by YAHWEH Himself both before and after His Incarnation. It is He Who guides His faithful by means of the “purification” and “illumination” of their hearts and finally to their ordination to prophethood by their “glorification.” Paul’s statement “when one is “glorified” the rest rejoice ^{[ 6 ]}” means that the man or woman in question has become a prophet. The difference between a “private person” and a member of the Body of Christ is that the latter has the gift of “unceasing” prayer in the heart, ^{[ 7 ]} called “illumination,” and prays at the same time with his brain. The “private person (idiotes)” has been praying only with his brain and his physical tongue and is being guided through the “purification” of the heart toward its “illumination” and full membership in the Body of Christ. When one arrives at “glorification” the state of childhood is abolished since one has become a “grownup (ANER),” a “prophet.” However, this is not a permanent state in this life since one goes back to “illumination” a grownup until one will again see “face to face” and “when I will be fully known, as I was fully known. ^{[ 8 ]} ” Those Protestants and Orthodox who are not interested in this struggle for the “purification” of the heart which leads to its “illumination” and “glorification,” are wasting their and our time and money leading us to the opposite of “illumination” and full membership in the Body of Christ.

3. One knows that one is becoming a member of the Body of Christ when one has unceasing prayer in the heart. In contrast to this reality this CUV document lacks a description of who are the members of the Body of Christ and how one becomes a member. Instead, the document assumes that the member churches of the WCC are already members of the Body of Christ and so they will “help each other in order that the Body of Christ may be built up and that the life of the churches may be renewed. (1.2)” Within proper context this could be true. Within the current context CUV seems to be telling us that sick people are healing each other without much help from the Real Doctor of our souls and bodies Who happens to be and has always been YAHWEH Himself both before and after His Incarnation and Pentecost working via his prophets. The prophets of both Testaments are the same except for the addition of the Incarnation and Pentecost.

4. As written, this document ignores the fact that Christ Himself rules His Own Body, the Church, and that it is He Himself Who adds new members to His own Body. The Lord of Glory does not need the WCC to help Him do His own work. He has been doing this before and after His incarnation by means of His Own prophets whom He chooses by His glorifying them. This He does when He “purifies” and “illumines” their hearts and “glorifies” them. It is these prophets, ordained by their “glorification” by the Lord of Glory Himself, who guide the faithful through these stages of cure which they pass on through the ages till now.

_

NOTES:

^{[ 4 ]} Not “kingdom of God” which makes it created.

^{[5 ]} 1 Cor. 14:16,23; 2Cor. 11:6.

^{[ 6 ]} 1 Cor. 12,26

^{[7 ]} The Metropolitan of Corinth Panteleimon edited the Greek Patristic collection of this prayer in five volumes called PHILOKALIA, Athens 1957-1963. For a popular view of this tradition in English see “Way of a Pilgrim,” Light and Life Publishing Co. Minneapolis Minnesota. This edition contains a second part “and the Pilgrim Continues on his Way” which may be not from the same author. The Monastery of Koutloumousiou of Mount Athos published in Greek the first work which translated this prayer in the heart into a neurological context: “RELIGION IS A NEUROLOGICAL SICKNESS, WHEREAS ORTHODOXY IS ITS CURE,” by John S. Romanides, in its volume entitled ORTHODOXY AND HELLENISM ON THE ROAD TO THE THIRD MILLENIUM, � 1996, pp. 67-87.

^{[ 8 ]} 1 Cor. 13, 10-12.

_source_

Return to the physiological prayerful state …

“In its physiological prayerful state, noetic energy moves cyclically like an axle turning within the heart. In its ailing state, noetic energy does not turn like an axle cyclically, but while being rooted in the heart, it unfolds and cleaves to the brain and creates a short-circuit between the brain and the heart. So, the concepts of the brain that are all from the environment become concepts of noetic energy always rooted in the heart. So, the sufferer becomes a slave of his environment …. The undefeatable weapon against the devil is the healing of this short circuit between the heart’s noetic energy and the brain’s reason. The healing consists of the limitation of all concepts in the brain, whether they be good or bad, which is achieved only when the noetic energy of the heart returns to its physiological cyclical movement by means of unceasing noetic prayer. Those who maintain that it is possible to cast out bad concepts and keep only good ones in the brain are naive. One must know the concepts of the devil with precision to defeat him [at his own game]. This is achieved by means of the cyclical movement of prayer in the heart. … “

Father John Romanides, “Religion is a Neurobiological Illness, Orthodoxy its Healing,” Orthodox Hellenism: Way in the Third Millennium (Agion Oros: 1. M .. Koutloumousiou, 1995), vol. 2, pp. 67-76 (in Greek).

_

Love of Money

Metropolitan Anthony (Krapovitsky) of Kiev

Confession

A Series of Lectures on the Mystery of Repentance

St. Anthony of Kiev

Love of Money

A priest who has devoted himself to the service of God willingly, and not from extraneous motives, tends to think of all Christians who are accomplishing their salvation (i.e. coming to confession) as people wishing to devote their lives to perfecting themselves spiritually and so are engaged in struggling only with their remaining sinful passions: pride, lust and anger. It is therefore very difficult for him to understand a person who, although he both believes and is mindful of the future life and avoids serious sins, yet has other gods apart from the true God. Such are lovers of money — hard-hearted misers and covetous of material gain. Although disturbances of anger, self-love and lust frequently draw a man away from God, yet they burst into the soul as blind outbursts, as enemies attacking it against its will. Avarice and meanness, however, are not blind, stormy outbursts, but represent a calm, consciously held attitude of mind and direction of will. How can they remain in the soul of a Christian as he listens to Christ foretelling His Dread Judgement and to His many statements about the impossibility of salvation for those who hope in riches? Nevertheless, for many pious people who love the Church and live in a sober fashion, enrichment is often the guiding aim in all their activity, for all their life. These are not infrequently people with a strong will and self-control — characteristics required both for maintaining a pious life in the Church and for acquiring riches. Let us recall the rich youth in the Gospel: “All these things have I kept from my youth up, what lack I yet?” Perhaps a rich heir can “keep all these things” (i.e. fulfill the commandments), but one engaged in making or multiplying riches, or a miser, is of course unable to do so. Such a person must unfailingly have turned away those in need, not helped his kinsfolk, not supported the Church, cast his business partners into poverty — in short, been heartless and harsh.

How can this be combined with piety? Naturally, by means of a self-deception which suggests the thought that it is absolutely essential for the good of the family to increase one’s wealth and guard the family inheritance stingily. Or, it may inspire one to reinterpret all the words of our faith which condemn love of money in a sense favourable to oneself, or attempt to prove that all those in need and asking for one’s help are idlers and drunkards. In order to calm his conscience, such a person sometimes makes donations to the Church or to good causes, but such are trifles in comparison with what he has obtained by wronging his neighbors so that he cannot altogether calm himself, but is just trying to deceive himself. Therefore he is anxious and irritable, capricious and despotic, like the heroes of our writers: Ostrovsky, Gorbunov and others. A businessman in the south of Russia built a large, splendid church and summoned his old uncle to admire the wonderful structure. “Yes, it’s a big, splendid church,” said the old man, “it’ll hold a lot of people; but still, not so many as you’ve fleeced and cheated: you could never get all of them into this big church.”

The old man could talk like that, but it is hard for a spiritual father to do the same, and this is not only because he must not condemn and discredit those few donors and benefactors who still exist in our sinful times. There is another reason: it is not easy to draw the line between keeping riches, which is permitted, and enslavement to the passion of avarice, which is forbidden. Industry and trade are necessities for the nation and for society, and they will only flourish through the efforts of strong manufacturers and traders. Their zealous work for the nation and state is combined with increasing their own wealth, and if they were to renounce the desire to get rich, they would hardly be likely to devote their thoughts and efforts to making their enterprises flourish. Almost the same applies to the owners of small estates and even to ordinary farmers. Of course, if he shows willingness to do so, the priest will not seek to restrain him from acting like Matthew the publican and the sons of Zebedee — leaving his business and following the Lord, to a monastery, for example. But we must remember that the Lord gave this command (it was a command, and certainly not advice, as our miserable commentaries have it) — to the rich youth only when it turned out that he was subduing the passions in himself and was following God’s commandments in everything, and consequently was spiritually mature enough to step onto the path of total dedication to God and the Church (“and come and follow Me”).

But what is to be done with people who are well-intentioned but still not strangers to the passion of avarice and are involved in an enterprise connected with the increase of their earthly well-being?

Of course, when parishioners have a lucid conscience and themselves admit their subjection to the passion of avarice, the priest must talk to them directly about it. But misers and lovers of money who do not realise their sinful state must first be questioned about the obviously sinful deeds and acts which self-interested people usually commit. They are enumerated in the catechism at the exposition of the second commandment. When the person confessing admits to cheating a few times in business or doing a partner a bad turn, or refusing to help a widowed relative or a student nephew, then ask him why he acted so dishonestly and harshly. Does this mean that his wish to increase or preserve his property has already become a passion for the sake of which he is losing the voice of conscience? Let him not think that this does not stop him seeming to be a good person and Christian. Judas — (it is especially useful to mention Judas in these cases) — was also a man of prayer and a believer; he even healed the infirm and the possessed as the other Apostles did (Luke 9:6, 10:17): but he succumbed to the passion of avarice, and to what depths did he then descend? Was it not of him that the Lord said, “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed: it were better for that man if he had not been born,” and again, “Have I not chosen twelve, but one of you is a devil?” And so, “Behold, O lover of money, this man through money came to hang himself. Flee the insatiable desire which dared to do such things to the Master.”

It is extremely important that the lover of money should realize that he is in the hands of a pernicious passion. If a priest achieves this, he has done something more difficult than convincing a fornicator, a drunkard or an angry person of this. These passions clearly show themselves for what they are by their hideous consequences, but self-interest is a passion with an aura of respectability, which not in frequently conceals itself from its victims. “What? Have I got to give away everything arid become a beggar?” asks the perplexed sinner. “No, the time for that has not yet come. First you must come to hate your passion, and then, when it prevents you from doing an act of generosity by threatening you with ruin, trample it down; do this, to begin with, at least in those cases where, on considering the matter calmly, you realize that you will not suffer any ruin. When you have done the good deed, ask yourself if you have not obtained a different kind of profit, better than money. Has not at least a part of the joy you have given to the other person been passed on to you also? Is not your heart gladdened with a sweet hope when you are able to apply to yourself those eloquent, exceptional petitions which the Church makes on behalf of those who have given to her: “Sanctify those who love the beauty of Thy house; glorify them with Thy divine power.” The Church calls church-builders “blessed” and “ever-memorable” even during their life, as well as after death. Do not hate those who ask your help, but rather your pernicious passion. You will not be ruined by benevolence, but meanness and self-interest make a man hateful for all those around him, not excluding his own family. You can start doing good to your neighbour simply by not avoiding it in those cases where it will not hinder or put a stop to your business, but there can be no such limitations when it is a question of ceasing to do evil to your neighbours. Even if it seems that without deceiving people or ruining your rival you cannot even put your business matters straight; that you will incur a considerable loss of property if you do not permit yourself to do some dishonest practice; then doom yourself to loss, even to ruin, rather than increase your possessions to the accompaniment of the tears and curses of your neighbours and criminal acts in general, if you do not wish to be like Judas. Let not the words of St. John Chrysostom fall upon you: “A rich man is a robber or the son of a robber.” A spiritual father should strictly condemn robbers and revolutionaries, reminding them of the tenth commandment and the rule of the Nomocanon, according to which a thief or robber must return what he has stolen and add a fifth part of the value. Even then he can only receive Communion after two years have passed, but those who have seized Church property are not to communicate for fifteen years (Rules 46, 47, 49, 50 and others).

Robbers of Church property are subject to excommunication. About deceptions and extortion which one is supposedly forced to commit through fear of one’s own ruin, you must point out that no official or sentry or judge is justified in breaking his oath through fear of people or of poverty. In the same way, if a trader or land-owner cannot preserve his prosperity without deceit or causing disaster to his adversary, let him doom himself to loss or even ruin, but not fall short of the demands of honesty.

Concluding our talk about the struggle with avarice we will say that the priest, in advising his parishioner to overcome it by works or almsgiving, should advise him not only to throw pennies to beggars and cadgers, but also of his own initiative to help those whom he knows to be in need, even if they are not dying of hunger. If he has the time and enthusiasm, he can seek out cases of need and verify them. Only by helping others can a Christian increase in himself the virtue of brotherly love and turn his heart away from avarice. The priest must be especially careful about advising people to give money to the Church and benevolent institutions, so as not to give them cause to suspect him of self-interest and thus deprive all his exhortations of their force.

The examples we have given here of spiritual exhortations against various passions do not, of course, exhaust all the possible means of curing them: that would provide enough material to fill a thick book. Of the passions indicated by the fathers we have left gluttony, sloth, and idle-talking without detailed examination, but what are we to say about such secondary sins when “From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it: but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment” (Is. 1:6). Of course, it is fitting to talk also about these at confession, but we will limit ourselves to giving directions for the healing of more pressing spiritual sicknesses, in the form of separate sins and falls into sin.

_

We are living in a strange time

ON THE MODERN WORLD

Archbishop Averky of Syracuse

_

We are living in a strange time, when all the true and healthy Christian concepts are being replaced by false and deceitful concepts, discovered often with an evil intention with the undoubted intention, naturally, of drawing people away from the right path of a truly Christian life. In all of this there can be discerned some kind of rationally acting black hand which is working to bind people as tightly as possible to this temporary, earthly life by forcing them to forget the future life, the eternal life assuredly awaiting us all.

We must be clearly aware of the kind of time in which we live. Indeed, only a spiritually blind roan, or one who had already sold his soul to the enemies of our holy faith and Church, could fail to sense the spirit of the approaching Antichrist in everything which is now happening in the world. Of what sort of genuine union of all Christians in the spirit of Christian love can one speak now when the Truth is denied by almost everyone, when deceit is in control almost everywhere, when a genuinely spiritual life among people who call themselves Christians has dried up and been replaced by a carnal life, an animal life which has nonetheless been placed on a pedestal and concealed by the idea of pretended charity which hypocritically justifies any sort of spiritual excess, any sort of moral anarchy. Indeed it is from this that are derived all these numberless “balls,” various kinds of “games,” “dances” and amusements toward which, despite their immoral, anti-Christian nature, even my modern clergymen have a tolerant attitude, sometimes even organizing them themselves and participating in them.

A terrible, unrelieved, hopeless unscrupulousness has taken possession of many people. The true doctrine of the faith and the Church for which the first Christians died in such tortures has become a hollow sound for the majority of modern “Christians.” They neither know this doctrine, nor do they desire to know it, for they are indifferent to it.

Dull, cold indifference to almost anything which bears the imprint of ideological content and seeking in everything only one’s own personal advantage. This is the character of our time.

This lack of ideological content, this unscrupulousness accompanied by departure from the true faith and the Church and by indifference to them is the basic, fundamental sin of which we, Russian Orthodox Christians, must repent.

It is not for us to enjoy ourselves, to amuse ourselves, to dance on the grave of Russia, brought down to its deathbed by us, but rather to repent in tears, really to repent, as the Holy Church teaches us, with a firm intention to change our life radically, to renew our spirit.

As salt preserves food from decay and makes it healthful and pleasant to the taste, so too true Christians preserve the world from moral decay and facilitate its return to health. But if the salt “loses its savor,” as the Gospel says, i.e. “loses its strength” (in the East there actually is a kind of salt which can lose its taste), then it becomes good for nothing except to be “thrown out to be trodden under foot of men” (cf. the Gospel reading for the third day of the feast of Pentecost, Matt. 5:31-3).

How terrible this is! And we find ourselves living in such times when the tendency dominating the world is directed toward making all Christians such “salt which has lost its savor,” once it has abolished the true Church of Christ derived from the Holy Apostles and thus has deprived Christians of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

This is the so very fashionable, so-called “ecumenical movement,” which is based tin the position that supposedly the true Church of Christ does not presently exist on earth and it is necessary to create it anew…through the unification of all Christians belonging to various “churches” and confessional associations and organizations; this will be done by various mutual concessions in matters of doctrine and the development of a new, common system of doctrine acceptable to all and, along with it, of course, a new world view.

And the opinion, extremely popular in our times, that “it’s all the same which church you go to; after all, God is one” is in agreement with this tendency.

Yes! God is one, but, you know, He also gave us one faith; He created one Church for us, not many different faiths and “churches.” This is confirmed by the holy Apostle Paul when he says, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” and so we Christians should form “one body and one spirit,” as we are called to “in one hope of our calling” (Eph. 4:4-6).

If there is only one true faith and only one true Church, then as a consequence all other faiths and “churches” are false, not true. How then can anyone say that all faiths and “churches” are of equal value and that “it is all the same which church you go to.”

Therefore one can and must speak not of the ecumenical unification of everyone for the creation of some new Church, but only of the restoration of union between all who have fallen away and the one true Church of Christ to which Christ the Savior Himself gave the great and sure promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Oh, how great now is the dulling of conscience even of those people who consider themselves believers-the clouding of their minds and hearts, so that seeing, they do not see, and hearing, they do not hear, neither do they understand with their heart, as the holy prophet said (Isaiah 9:10).

This is the “hardening of hearts” of which he spoke.

But there is in our days an even more terrible phenomenon, encountered more and more often: a more or less conscious decision, for the sake of earthly goods and advantages, to serve the coming Antichrist.

This is the most extreme degree of falling away, from which it is very difficult to arise.

The fundamental task of the servants of the coming Antichrist is to destroy the old world with all its former concepts and “prejudices” in order to built in its place a new world suitable for receiving its approaching “new owner” who will take the place of Christ for people and give them on earth that which Christ did not give them ….

One must be completely blind spiritually, completely alien to true Christianity not to understand all this!

Zeal for God, zeal for the Truth is not “phariseeism,” just as “humility” before the enemies of God, the enemies of the Church, before diabolical Evil, is not the true and saving humility of the Publican, but just destructive self-deception, leading to the depths of hell.

In our times, when there are such strong doubts about even the existence of Truth, when every “truth” is considered relative and it is considered proper for each person to hold to “his own truth,” the struggle for the Truth acquires a particularly important meaning. And the person who does not sympathize with this struggle, who sees in it only a manifestation of “phariseeism” and suggests “humbling oneself” before Falsehood by falling away from the Truth, should naturally be recognized as a betrayer of the Truth, whoever he might be, whatever he might call or consider himself.

For us modern Christians faith, for the most part, is being divorced from life: we do not live in full agreement with the teachings and demands of our faith. Our faith so clearly and so definitely teaches us to renounce everything corruptible and earthly and to concentrate with all our thoughts and feelings on the incorruptible eternal life awaiting us. Theoretically, perhaps, we accept this (although of late there has appeared a special current of “neo-Christianity” which does not even want to accept this theoretically, but has thought up a completely new, heretofore unknown pseudo-Christian world view aimed at binding man more firmly to an earth which supposedly has been transfigured and sanctified by Christ’s coming into the world), we admit the end of the world, the Second Coming of Christ, the Last Judgment, and the future life, but in practice we live and act as if none of this is to be expected and we have only to make ourselves comfortable here on earth by providing for ourselves all sorts of good things and conveniences. We do not really want to think about the death which unavoidably awaits every one of us and we do not prepare ourselves as we ought for the future eternal life before us.

Peace!.. peace!.. peace!.. is heard now from every side: “mutual disarmament!..peaceful coexistence!.. we shall struggle for peace!.. everyone in defense of peace!..” How wonderful it would be, what a bright and joyful future it would promise for mankind if only these appeals had in mind that peace of which the angels sang on the night of Christ’s Birth: “glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will to men!” (Luke 2:14); if only it were that peace which the Savior Christ promised to His disciples at the Last Supper when He said, “My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you” (John 14:27); if only it were that “peace of God which passeth all understanding” (Phil. 4:7) which, at the Lord’s command, the Apostles transmitted to the first Christians, which they were taught to seek (I Peter 3:11), and which they were encouraged to have with God and with all people (Rom. 5:1; 12:18). How gratifying it would be to hear them if these appeals came from people of whose sincerity we could not have the slightest doubt, whose words we could trust completely-from people who were really convinced that the highest good in life is precisely that peace-peace with God, peace with one’s own conscience, and peace with one’s neighbors in the name of God.

But alas! It is not of such peace that people are talking now. All these frequently unnatural and pompous speeches and at times hysterical cries for peace for the whole world come at the present time for the most part from people who are either far from true Christianity or are directly opposed to the Church-from people who do not live at peace with God and with their own consciences, but are filled with spite in their relations with their neighbors.

Can we believe in the sincerity of speeches about peace when they are pronounced by people who in principle deny faith in God and love for their neighbors and do not recognize the voice of conscience?

Can we believe that people are really working toward peace when with open and bold blasphemy they have declared war on God Himself and His Holy Church?

When quite recently they did not hide the fact that their aim was to “stir up a worldwide conflagration”? When they openly preach “class hatred” as the basis of their ideology and are not in the least ashamed to pour out whole oceans of blood and to exterminate millions of people just for the suspicion that they disagree with their ideology?

Can we likewise believe in the sincere love for peace of those who in their words unctuously and cloyingly preach “Christian love” and “total forgiveness,” while in their actions they sow disturbances and discord and, by spreading lies and slander, create hostility and divisions, stirring people up against their neighbors? Can one in general believe that any sort of secure and reliable peace can be established on earth with the crude flouting of God’s Truth, with the lies and hypocrisy which are so clearly characteristic of the life of modern mankind?

Where the Truth of God is lacking there cannot be genuine peace.

While struggling resolutely against the most minute manifestations of evil and sin in our own souls, let us not fear to uncover and point out evil everywhere where it is to be found in modern life-not from pride and self-love, but only out of love for the truth. Our chief task. in this evil time of lying shamelessness is to remain totally faithful and devoted to the genuine truth of the Gospel and to the author of our salvation, Christ, the Giver of life Who rose on the third day from the tomb, the Conqueror of hell and death.

One must know well and remember that Tolstoy’s harmful doctrine of “non-resistance to evil” is completely foreign to true Christianity (by the way, this doctrine destroyed our unfortunate homeland, Russia, and plunged it into the terrible, bloody horrors of Bolshevism): no true Christian can be reconciled to evil, wherever and in whomever he might encounter it.

All true Christians throughout the whole history of the Church have followed the example of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and His Holy Apostles and have always condemned evil and struggled against it, even though this might cause them all sorts of severe deprivations and even cost them life itself.

_

Unclean ?

Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion

According to the Canons, though a woman is not in any manner more sinful in her cycle than a man is in the case of involuntary bodily emissions, she, like the man, must avoid Holy Communion at this time. These bodily functions are not sins, but they represent and emphasize the consequences of our fallen states. In approaching Holy Communion, we are lifting our fallen selves in the greatest humility to commune with what we are in Christ: literal participants in the Divine. We thus approach Christ as clean vessels to the greatest possible extent for us in our fallen state, that He might come into us and transform us. Being holy, He comes only to those who strive to holiness. He cannot enter into that which is evil without destroying it. The Eucharist, hence, is the fire that cleanses, for those well prepared, and the fire that burns, for those not prepared. As St. John Chrysostomos writes, “This is a great and wonderful thing, so that if you approach it with pureness, you approach for salvation; but if you do so with an evil conscience, it is for punishment and vengeance.”

In a homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew, St. John Chrysostomos does praise the great faith of the woman who had suffered hemorrhages (an “issue of blood”) for some twelve years. He points out that Christ freed her both of her illness and of her guilt, which she had developed because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue was unclean. We would ask readers to review this homily both in English and Greek. We do not think that there is a shred of evidence that St. John Chrysostomos is suggesting that women commune during their periods. We find no evidence that St. John Chrysostomos somehow stand against the advice given by spiritual Fathers and Mothers across the centuries, only now to be uncovered as incorrect and un-Patristic advice!

We must in general be careful about those who suddenly proclaim the awesome Mysteries to be a “privilege” easy to exercise. We favor frequent Communion because this is the consistent and dominant Patristic teaching. But we also insist on proper fasting and preparation on the days before Communion and the utmost cleanliness of mind and body, which things are equally consistent and dominant in the teachings of the Fathers. I would wonder what woman would actually want to commune during her period, or what man would wish to do the same after a bodily emission. Where is the fear of God? Where is the sobriety? More importantly, where is the humility?

In an  article to be published this year in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Bishop [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos writes some words about preparation for Holy Communion that seem apropos of our discussion here. Let us cite these: “The Eucharist … is fully understood only as we recognize its function as a weapon in the war against the world and our fallen natures. The Eucharist is the ‘medicine of immortality,’ as the Patristic texts so frequently call it, by which we cure ourselves of the fallen nature of sin and the instrument of spiritual   restoration by which Christ, to quote St. Hesychios, ‘will enlighten our mind ever more and cause it to shine like a star.’ If Baptism introduces us to the struggle for the death of the flesh and union with God, it is the Eucharist which sustains us in this struggle. It is a direct participation in perfect manhood through the partaking of Christ, the Perfect God and Perfect Man. As St. John Chrysostomos tells us, we become ‘His flesh and His bones.’ And this oneness with Christ serves the function of moving us continually away from the world and mortal flesh to the ‘life in Christ,’ as Nicholas Kabasilas describes the sacramental life, and union with God begins here on earth. Knowing this to be the function of the Eucharist, contemporary misunderstandings of fasting and preparation for communion fade away. We come to understand, along with the great Abba Philemon (who, though a priest, dared only serve very infrequently at the Altar), that we should participate in the mystery of Christ only in a ‘pure and chaste condition,’ approaching the mystery ‘free from the flesh’ and ‘free from all hesitation and doubt,’ that we might wholly participate in ‘the enlightenment that proceeds from it.’ The whole of the spiritual life is one of attaining illumination and perfection, and the divine gift of the Eucharist comes to fulfill efforts toward purity in our daily lives and in our own human will. The Eucharist is a food for those who move toward the holy: ‘Holy things for the holy,’ as the Divine Liturgy says. It is death for those who fail to recognize its function. Fasting, abstinence from Holy Communion by women in their periods, abstinence by men polluted by nocturnal emissions contemporary objections to these fade when we begin to grasp the true function of the Eucharist and its divine aid in our human efforts toward perfection and our daily spiritual struggle with the world and its evil. The ascent toward perfection is centered in the Eucharist and we appropriately approach it as something which functions in concord with our highest human goals, aims, and efforts.”

Orthodox Tradition Vol. IV, No. 1

+ + +

Clarification from a Jewish Reader

I have just read the article on Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion. In the article it says, He points out that Christ freed her both of her illness and of her guilt, which she had developed because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue was unclean. This is completely false information. I believe that each religion should not comment on the supposed teachings of the other. Especially as in this case I can assure you that Judaism teaches no such thing.

I am now married to a Greek Orthodox man and am not a fully observant Jewess. I was raised as an Ultra-Orthodox Jew (Chasidic) and married a Rabbi when I was 19. I have lived that life of Family Purity whereby a woman and her husband have no physical contact during the 5 days of menses and for 7 days afterwards before the ritual immersion in the mikveh (pool/bath). At no time did I ever learn that I did this because I was unclean! I did this because a womans body after menstruation is able to conceive and the ritual waters symbolise the well-springs of life (like a Baptism), a spiritual rebirth as the womans body prepares for perhaps another actual birth. I also studied for three years in a Jewish Seminary and can point you to Jewish sources which teach that there is nothing unclean about a menstruating woman.

Please see the following websites for the Jewish approach to menstruation that I was brought up with. I have pasted a section below. I am happy to continue this dialogue if you wish. I am pleased that you replied.

Efharisto and Yasas. (Shalom)

Yael Clark

From: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=83805, “A Feminist on Mikvah”

“Judaism teaches that the source of all taharah, or purity, is life itself. Conversely, death is the harbinger of tumah, or impurity. All types of ritual impurity, and the Torah describes many, are rooted in the absence of life or some measureeven a whisperof death. When stripped to its essence, a woman’s menses signals the death of potential life. Each month, a woman’s body prepares for the possibility of conception. The uterine lining is built up in anticipation of a fertilized ovum. Menstruation is the shedding of that lining, the end of that possibility. The presence of potential life within fills a woman’s body with holiness and purity. In its absence, impurity sets in, conferring upon the woman a state of impurity referred to as niddut. Impurity is neither evil nor dangerous. It is simply the absence of purity, much as the darkness is the absence of light. Only immersion in the mikvah has the power to change that.”

From: http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article.asp?AID=1542, “On the Essence of Ritual Impurity”, by Susan Handelman

“One of the most widely misunderstood concepts in the Torah are contained in the words tumah and taharah. Translated as “unclean” and “clean,” or “impure” and “pure,” tumah and taharah — and by extension the laws of Niddah and Family Purity — often evoke a negative response. Why, it is asked, must a woman be stigmatized as tameh, “impure”? Why should she be made to feel inferior about the natural process of her body?

“It might be said that, at bottom, these objections arise from a fundamental misunderstanding. Tumah and taharah are, above all, spiritual and not physical concepts.”

Reply from the CTOS (Original Author)

Your excellent website has always struck me as comme il faut in its presentation of materials. However, in offering critical responses to comments that you have quoted from ORTHODOX TRADITION, “Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion” (Vol. IV, No. 1), you leave the reader, however inadvertently, with a very inappropriate impression. Let me explain.

Bishop Auxentios, who wrote the comments in question, referred to the issue of female menstruation by way of reference to a homily by St. John Chrysostomos, who pointed out that the woman with an issue of blood whom Christ healed, in the New Testamental account of His miracles, suffered from a sense of guilt because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue of blood was unclean. I quote His Grace:

“In a homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew, St. John Chrysostomos does praise the great faith of the woman who had suffered hemorrhages (an “issue of blood”) for some twelve years. He points out that Christ freed her both of her illness and of her guilt, which she had developed because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue was unclean.”

You have posted the following critical statement from a woman married to a Greek Orthodox Christian, who describes herself as a former Hasidic Jew who is not now “fully observant”:

“I have just read the article on Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion. In the article it says, He [sic] points out that Christ freed her both of her illness and of her guilt, which she had developed because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue was unclean. This is completely false information. I believe that each religion should not comment on the supposed teachings of the other. Especially as in this case I can assure you that Judaism teaches no such thing.”

I think that you somehow must have thought that this alleged “false information” came from ORTHODOX TRADITION (in actuality, His Grace, Bishop Auxentios), and not, as it did, from Chrysostomos himself. Thus you felt it perhaps appropriate to print such a criticism. In fact, on further reflection, you might want to clarify this entire matter. Let me first quote St. John Chrysostomos, who said the following, which is wholly and indisputably consistent with Bishop Auxentios’ summary of the Saint’s thinking:

“She [the woman with an issue of blood] was ashamed because of her affliction, considering herself to be unclean. Indeed, if the menstruating woman was judged to be unclean, how much more would she [the woman with the issue of blood] think the same, afflicted as she was with such a disease; for in fact, that complaint was considered under the [Jewish] law a great uncleanliness” (“Homily 31,” PATROLOGIA GRAECA, Vol. LVII, col. 371).

I will not enter into the question of the various and differing interpretations of “female” cleanliness or purity offered by Jews in various Talmudic schools and in various Halakhic traditions; nor will I attempt to comment on those who portray female uncleanliness or impurity as purely “spiritual” notions, even though I am quite intrigued by such interpretations. I will, however, as a student of Patristics and Church history, and as someone who has worked and translated with Bishop Auxentios, assure your readers and our Jewish critics that no “false information” was conveyed in these comments. That is a very inappropriate and ill-advised accusation, and especially since it ultimately constitutes a comment on the thinking of the Divine Chrysostomos, whom we Orthodox, whatever heterodox or non-Christian critics may wish to claim or say, would never criticize for conveying “false information.” Such would be more than inappropriate.

Bishop Auxentios simply referred to ideas which St. John Chrysostomos knew to be prevalent among the Jews at his time. To be sure, there are few scholars or Orthodox who would accuse him of purposely conveying “false information” on the grounds that “Judaism teaches no such thing.” Such a statement is an opinion, or peculiar conviction, and little more, and it rather naively dismisses historical thinking on the subject that was, as I have said, known to St. John Chrysostomos and, I dare say, to Jewish scholars, as well. Whether one agrees with this thinking, or whether there have developed various Talmudic opinions on the matter, is, again, an entirely different issue.

I would, as I intimated above, have some sympathy, in fact, with a spiritual interpretation of “bodily impurity” in ancient Jewish (and non-Jewish) thought; but that gives neither me nor anyone else the right to dismiss an actual historical school of thought as “false information” or to speak in a vulgar way, by implication, of the thinking of one of Orthodoxy’s greatest Saints. Personal opinion must always be balanced against an ACTUAL knowledge of Patristic tradition and against the tendency to be crudely critical for personal reasons and on the basis of personal opinion. The latter weakness always leads those who do not check it into contentiousness and unfair accusations.

If I may repeat myself, St. John Chrysostomos’ comments reflect the Patristic consensus about how the Jews of New Testamental (and other) times looked at menstruation and “hemorrhages” in women. Bishop Auxentios and ORTHODOX TRADITION, for which I have been writing for some years now, drew on that consensus (a consensus which we always follow, even if those unfamiliar with the Patristic witness often accuse us of doing otherwise) in making their comments on these matters. Personally, being neither anti-Semitic nor convinced that one may not speak about other religious traditions (this would, indeed, spell the end of comparative religion as a scholarly pursuit), I have no qualms about suggesting that you clarify this matter and the absolute accuracy of Bishop Auxentios’ comments on the subject at hand, by posting my comments.

Thank you for your attention. Please continue your excellent work.

HIEROMONK PATAPIOS
Academic Director
Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
Etna, CA

_source_

_

Avoiding Signs

The quickening of the soul by the Word of God [Christ] results in a living faith in Christ. A living faith, as it were, sees Christ (Heb. 11:27). Christianity is revealed before its eyes, while remaining a mystery; while remaining unknowable it is clear and understandable; it is no longer covered by that thick, impenetrable curtain, as when faith is dead. A living faith is spiritual reasoning (Saint Isaac the Syrian, Homily 28). It has no need of signs, being wholly satisfied by the signs of Christ, and the greatest of His signs, the crown of signs His Word. The desire to see signs serves as an indication of unbelief, and the signs were given to unbelievers to turn them to belief. Let us cling to the Word of God [Christ] with all our soul, let us unite with Him into one spirit, and the signs of the Antichrist will not even attract our attention. With disdain and revulsion we will turn our eyes away from them, as from a demonic spectacle, as from an act of fanatical enemies of God, as from a mocking of God, and as from deathly poison and infection. Let us remember the following especially important note taken from the experience of the ascetics all demonic manifestations are of such a nature that even minute attention to them is dangerous, for such attention [even if] allowed without any special sympathy to the manifestation, can make a most harmful impression, and result in a serious temptation.

- Blessed Bishop Ignaty (Brianchaninov)

_

Suffering hell ?

“What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.”

- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

-

Spiritual Charlatans

Among those who call themselves “Christians,” there are multitudes of spiritual charlatans and cultural Bolsheviks.

- Fr. James Thornton

Towards Renewal and Renaissance

_

Spiritual charlatans are only in business to maintain ‘their groups’ bottom line & has no interest in their customers. (St. Matthew 24:5) – Diakrisis Logismōn

_

Cremation ?

by Protopresbyter George Grabbe [1970]

[_source_]

The question concerning cremation arose in comparatively recent times, moreover, in countries where the Orthodox population is relatively small. In Russia it was discussed during the period of the development of the Revolution, in the course of the years 1905-1906; but at that time the thought of cremation was so far removed from actual attempts to implement it that apparently no ecclesiastical decisions whatever were handed down in regard to the cremation of the bodies of the dead. However, this thought did meet with some protest in small articles of the ecclesiastical press. In more recent times, the Serbian Church waged a determined battle against an attempt to set up crematoria in Belgrade. In the newspaper Politics in 1929, there appeared a short polemical exchange in connection with this subject between Kuyundzhich, a well-known Serbian Mason, the chairman of the Fire Society which had been organized to spread the idea of cremation, and Archimandrite (later Bishop) Simeon (Stankovich), professor of the theological faculty. Objecting to the cremation of the bodies of the dead, Archimandrite Simeon pointed out that the existing practice of burial was consonant with the ancient traditions of the Church, and that the concept of cremation of the dead originated in the Masonic lodges which were striving to popularize it. Mr. Kuyundzhich, for his part, tried to prove that the cremation of the dead was not contrary to the Christian faith. To make this suggestion palatable to the public, the Fire Society even wished to establish a slava according to the rite of the Serbian Church, but the Patriarchate, in order to emphasize, its unfavorable attitude towards the society, forbade Orthodox priests to take any part in such a celebration.

In connection with a particular occurrence, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad also set forth a decision on the question of the cremation of the bodies of the dead, and during its August 20-September 2, 1932 session, it issued the following resolution: “As a matter of principle, the incineration of the. bodies of Orthodox Christians in crematoria is not permitted, in view of the fact that this custom has been introduced by atheists and enemies of the Church. In all individual, extenuating circumstances, the decision is left to the diocesan bishop.”

There is evidence that the Greek Church also expressed its opposition to cremation, but we are not familiar with, the circumstances stances which brought about this pronouncement.

Thus, whenever the question of cremation has been placed before the Orthodox Church and Orthodox theological thought, it has invariably been resolved in a manner unfavorable to the question, although there has been no direct decision by the entire Church on this matter to date. However, if there are not explicit canons condemning the cremation of the bodies of the dead, there is still a solid basis for stating that the introduction of such a custom would contradict the teaching of the Church and her canons, insofar as it would be contrary to Christian practice as established in the first centuries.

If one approaches the question from the canonical point of view, one must say that far from every rite of the divine services of the Church and not every legal norm has been established by a specially enacted resolution. St. Basil the Great, in his 87th canon [1], states that in the Church custom has the force of law. In another canon (91), St. Basil writes: “From the dogmas and preachings preserved in the Church, we have some in doctrine set forth in writing, and others, which have come down to us from apostolic tradition, we have received in secret, both of which have equal force as regards piety. Accordingly, no one gainsays these, at least no one that has any experience at all in ecclesiastical matters. For if we should undertake to discard the customs not set forth in the Scriptures, as though they had no great force, we would unwittingly do damage to that which is most important in the Gospel, and would turn our preaching into empty words. For example, to mention the first and most common custom: Who has taught in writing those that put their hope on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to sign themselves with the sign of the Cross? What Scripture has instructed us to face East when we pray? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words pronounced at the exhibition of the Bread and Cup of Blessing? For we are not, even content with those words with which the apostles or the Gospel mentioned, but before and after them have added yet others, on the ground that they contribute greatly to enhance the Mystery, receiving them from teachings not found in the Scriptures. We bless the water, of baptism and the oil of anointing, and even the person baptized, according to which canons found in the Scriptures? Is this not preserved according to silent and mystical tradition?” [2] Interpreting the 87th canon of St. Basil the Great, Bishop Nikodim Milash correctly states that a custom has always had the same force as law in the Church, provided that its institution was authorized by the Church and if it has been sanctified by long existence (The Canons of the Orthodox Church with Interpretations, vol. II, p. 426, Novi Sad, 1895). Indeed, a whole array of the canons of the Church protects one or another her norm as established by ancient custom. Such canons are canons 7 and 18 of the First Ecumenical Council, canons 2 and 7 of the Second, canon 8 of the Third, and canons 39 and 102 of the Sixth and the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in their canon 7, which ordered the reaffirmation of the custom of placing in the foundations of churches the holy relics which had been removed by the iconoclasts, likewise commanded that other customs abandoned by the iconoclasts be reconfirmed, and “in accordance with both the written and the unwritten law they must prevail.” [3] The council subjected anyone who consecrates churches without holy relics to deposition for having transgressed the traditions of the Church. Thus, if other canons enumerated by us point to ancient tradition or custom as a canonical norm, the 7th canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council contains also a sanction (deprival of rank) against those that transgress the unwritten laws of the Church which had never particularly been proclaimed, but which had been preserved in ancient customs. Civil jurisprudence acknowledges the so-called common law, but nowhere does it have such significance as in the Church, for her customs are an expression of the faith which she has preserved as a treasury of truth, and their violation not only causes scandal, but can even lead to heresy and great discord. The great heresy which took the form of the rejection of reverence for icons—the pretext that such veneration had no scriptural basis, but was based solely on custom—serves as a clear proof of the correctness of this assertion.

The mode of burial which alone has been established and manifested as lawful is clearly evident from the funeral service. Therein it is plainly indicated that, after the conclusion of the funeral service, the body is committed to the earth: “And thus, taking up the remains, we go forth to the grave, all the people following, preceded by the priest. And the relics are placed in the grave. The hierarch, or priest, taking up dirt with a spade, spreads it above the relics in a cross-wise fashion, saying: ‘The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, the world and all that dwell therein. . .’ (Ps. 23:1). And thus, they cover the grave as usual.”

In regard to the burial of the bodies of departed Christians in the earth, the custom has indisputably been preserved in the Church without change from the first days of her existence, and therefore the Roman law, cited by Zonaras [4] and later by Bishop Nikodim in his interpretation of the 87th canon of St. Basil the Great, is applicable: “When there does not exist a written law, one ought to preserve the customs and usages”, and “one must keep the ancient customs as law.” The custom of burying the dead came to the New Testament Church from the time of the Old Testament and was preserved by Christians who lived among peoples that widely practiced cremation of their dead. Thus, the holy canons which guard all the customs of the Church command that the ancient custom of burying the dead in the earth be preserved.

But apart from the canonical, there is yet another side to the question. In our rite of burial there is manifested internally a humble submission to the decision of God: “Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return” (Gen. 3:19). It is completely understandable that the Masons, who have a pantheistic ideology, take exception to this law of God. Deifying mankind, they wish to cover up the law of corruption which bears witness to the downfall of human nature, when man beholds “our beauty, fashioned after the image of God … disfigured, dishonored, bereft of form.” [5] On the contrary, the entire ecclesiastical rite of burial was fashioned with the burial of the departed Christian in mind, in fulfilment of the judgment God pronounced over Adam: “For out of earth were we mortals made, and unto the earth shall we return again.” [6] “Come ye, therefore, let us kiss him who was but lately with us; for he is committed to the grave; he is covered with a stone; he taketh up his abode in the gloom, and is interred among the dead.” [7] The appearance of the dead body and its burial should be for our instruction: “As we gaze upon the dead lying before us, let us all discern the image of our own final hour. For he vanisheth … like the grass he is cut down; swathed in sackcloth, he is covered with earth.” [8] These verses (stikhiri) speak of decay in detail, calling upon us to pray for the dead and reminding us at the same time that “Vanity and corruption, of a truth, are all … the things of life … They that once were alive are now cast down into the grave.” [9]

But the full decay of the body—”all comeliness stripped off, dissolved in the grave by decay, by worms in darkness consumed” [10]—is the normal appearance of sinful people. In general, Christians are called to a spiritual perfection which should sanctify their very bodies. The promise has been given to the faithful children of the Church: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the children of God” (Jn. 1:12). To the faithful it is said that they are “heirs of God” (Gal. 4:7), “joint heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). Calling to mind in connection with these sayings that the Lord is called “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16) and “God of gods” (Ps. 49:1), St. John of Damascus writes that “surely also the saints are gods, and lords and kings … Now, I mean gods, and lords and kings not in nature, but as rulers and masters of their passions, and as preserving a true likeness to the divine image according to which they were made” [11]. According to the same holy Father, “death is rather the sleep of the saints than their death. ‘For they have labored forever and shall live to the end’ (Ps. 48:8-9).” [12] And the very remains of the saints, who are the children of God and joint heirs with Christ, remain sources of grace, at times being preserved incorrupt and even giving forth myrrh. Even in the Old Testament miracles were worked through the relics veneration of the saints, an example of which is the prophet Elisha, of whom it is said that “after his death his body prophesied” (Eccles. 48:13), and through whose relics life was restored to a dead man (IV Kings 13:20-21). Even more numerous are the signs of grace from the relics of New Testament saints. In burying the bodies of the departed, the Church leaves it to the will of God either to commit them to natural decay in accordance with the judgment pronounced upon Adam, or to set aside the order of nature and preserve the bodies of the saints incorrupt, as a clear sign that the righteous souls that inhabited them “are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them” (Wis. Sol. 3:1). To cremate bodies would mean to reject so ,precious a sign of grace, which serves as a fountain of salvation “pouring forth manifold blessings.” [13]

Thus the order of burial which we have at present has been sanctified by ancient custom and, as such, is protected by the sacred canons; it is consonant with the whole spirit of the Orthodox teaching concerning man, and is deeply edifying. On the contrary, cremation of bodies is unacceptable from the Church’s point of view, as an innovation which has come from an infected source, which, in the, case of its implementation, would deprive us of the incorrupt bodies of the holy saints of God.
—
Translator’s Notes

1. The Rudder, pp. 842-844. This canon is in fact an extract from St. Basil’s canonical epistle to Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus.

2. Ibid., pp. 853-854.

3. Ibid., p. 436.

4. John Zonoras, one of the foremost of the Byzantine canonists, flourished during the reign of Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, in the early part of the twelfth century. After a brilliant career in the civil service, during which he attained the rank of privy-councillor of the emperor, he retired to the Monastery of St. Glyceria and took the monastic tonsure. There, at the urging of certain of his friends, he undertook to compile a commentary on the body of canon law that had come down from the holy councils and the Fathers.

5. Stikhira of St. John Damascene. Service Book of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, trans. Isabel P. Hapgood, 3rd edition, publ. Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, Brooklyn, 1956, p. 386.

5. Ikos of Burial Service. Ibid., p. 383.

6. Ibid., p. 389.

7. Ibid., p. 390.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Precise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. IX, p. 86.

11. Ibid, p. 87.

12. Ibid.

From Orthodox Life, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 32-36. Original Source: The Church and Her Teaching in Life: Anthology of Articles. Protopresbyter George Grabbe, Vol. II, pp. 316-321, Montreal, 1970.
_

The Soul After Death

CHAPTER FIVE – THE AERIAL REALM OF SPIRITS

_

IN order to understand what is the realm into which the soul enters at death, we must look at it in the whole context of man’s nature. We shall have to know of man’s nature before his fall, the changes it underwent after the fall, and the capabilities man has for entering into contact with spiritual beings.

Perhaps the most concise Orthodox discussion of these subjects is to be found in the same book of Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov), which we have already quoted concerning the Orthodox doctrine of angels (Vol. III of his collected works). Bishop Ignatius devoted one chapter of this book to a discussion of “THE SENSORY PERCEPTION OF SPIRITS”—that is, angelic and demonic apparitions to men. In what follows we shall quote this chapter, which gives the Orthodox Patristic teaching, soberly and precisely handed down by one of the great Orthodox Fathers of modern times. (Titles added by translator.)

1. MAN’S ORIGINAL NATURE

“Before the fall of man, his body was immortal, a stranger to infirmities, a stranger to its present crudeness and heaviness, a stranger to the sinful and fleshly feelings that are now natural to it (St. Macarios the Great, Homily 4). His senses were incomparably more subtle, their activity was incomparably broader and totally free. Being clothed with such a body, with such organs of sense, man was capable of the sensuous perception of spirits, to which rank he himself belonged in soul; he was capable of communion with them, of that Divine vision and communion with God which is natural to holy spirits. The holy body of man did not serve as a hindrance to this, did not separate man from the world of spirits. Man, clothed in a body, was capable of dwelling in paradise, in which now only saints, and only in their souls, are capable of remaining, into which the bodies of the saints also will ascend after the resurrection. Then these bodies will leave in the grave the crudeness which they assumed after the fall; then they will become spiritual, even spirits, in the expression of St. Macarios the Great (Homily 6, ch. 13), and will manifest in themselves those qualities which were given them at their creation.* (* There is, however, a distinction in subtlety between the body of man in paradise before his fall, and his body in heaven after the resurrection. See Homily 45, ch. 5, of St. Symeon the New Theologian, in The Orthodox Word, no. 76 and The Sin of Adam, St. Herman Monastery Press, 1979. –Ed. note.) Then men will again enter the rank of the holy spirits and will be in open communion with them. We may see an example of the body that will be at the same time both body and spirit in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ after His resurrection.

2. THE FALL OF MAN

“By the fall both the soul and body of man were changed. In the strict sense the fall was for them also a death. That which we see and call death is in essence only the separation of the soul from the body, both of which had already before this been put to death by an eternal death! The infirmities of our body, its subjection to the hostile influence of various substances from the material world, its crudeness—these are a consequence of the fall. By reason of the fall our body entered into the same rank as the bodies of animals; it exists with an animal life, the life of its fallen nature. It serves for the soul as a prison and tomb.

“These expressions we have used are strong. But even so they do not adequately express the descent of our body from the height of the spiritual condition to the fleshly condition. One must cleanse oneself by careful repentance, one must feel at least to some degree the freedom and height of the spiritual condition, in order to acquire an understanding of the miserable condition of our body, the condition of its deadness caused by estrangement from God.

“In this condition of deadness, by reason of their extreme crudeness and coarseness, the bodily senses are incapable of communion with spirits, they do not see them, do not hear them, do not sense them. Thus the blunted axe is no longer capable of being used according to its purpose. The holy spirits avoid communion with men who are unworthy of such communion; while the fallen spirits, who have drawn us into their fall, have mingled with us and, so as the more easily to hold us in captivity strive to make both themselves and their chains unnoticeable to us. And if they do reveal themselves, they do it in order to strengthen their dominion over us.

“All of us who are in slavery to sin must understand that communion with holy angels is unnatural to us by reason of our estrangement from them by the fall; that what is natural to us, for the same reason, is communion with the fallen spirits, to whose rank we belong in soul; that the spirits who appear sensuously to men who are in a state of sinfulness and fall, are demons and not in the least holy angels. ‘A filthy soul,’ said St. Isaac the Syrian, ‘does not enter the pure realm and is not joined to holy spirits’ (Homily 74). Holy angels appear only to holy men who have restored communion with God and with them by a holy life.* (* However, in rare cases, for some special purpose of God, holy angels do appear to sinful men and even to animals, as Bishop Ignatius notes below. Ed. note.)

3. CONTACT WITH FALLEN SPIRITS

“Although the demons, in appearing to men, usually assume the appearance of bright angels in order to deceive the more easily; although they also strive sometimes to convince men that they are human souls and not demons (this manner of deception at the present time is in special fashion among demons, due to the particular disposition of contemporary men to believe it); even though they sometimes foretell the future; even though they reveal mysteries—still one must not trust them in any way whatsoever. With them truth is mixed with falsehood; truth is used at times only for a more convenient deception. Satan is transformed into an angel of light, and his ministers as the servants of righteousness, said the Apostle Paul (II Cor. 11:14,15)” (Bishop Ignatius, Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 7—9).

“A general rule for all men is by no means to trust the spirits when they appear in sensuous form, not to enter into conversation with them, not to pay any attention to them, to acknowledge their appearance as a great and most dangerous temptation. At the time of this temptation one should direct one’s mind and heart to God with a prayer for mercy and for deliverance from temptation. The desire to see spirits, curiosity to find out anything about them and from them, is a sign of the greatest foolishness and total ignorance of the Orthodox Church’s traditions concerning moral and active life. Knowledge of spirits is acquired quite differently than is supposed by the inexperienced and careless experimenter. Open communion with spirits for the inexperienced is the greatest misfortune, or serves as a source of the greatest misfortunes.

“The Divinely-inspired writer of the book of Genesis says that after the fall of the first men, God, in pronouncing sentence on them before banishing them from paradise, made for them garments of skins, and clothed them (Gen. 3:20). The garments of skins, in the explanation of the Holy Fathers (St. John Damascene, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 3, ch.1), signify our coarse flesh which, at the fall, was altered: it lost its subtlety and spiritual nature and received its present crudeness. Although the original reason for this change was the fall, still the change occurred under the influence of the Almighty Creator, in His unutterable mercy towards us, and for our great good. Among the other consequences, profitable for us, which come from the condition in which our body now is, we should indicate this one: through the crudeness of our body we have become incapable of the sensuous perception of the spirits into whose realm we have fallen…. The wisdom and goodness of God have placed an obstacle between men, cast down to earth from paradise, and the spirits who had been cast down to earth from heaven; this obstacle is the coarse materiality of the human body. Thus do earthly rulers separate evildoers from human society by a prison wall, lest they harm this society according to their own desire and corrupt other men. (St. John Cassian, Conference 8, ch. 12.) The fallen spirits act on men, bringing them sinful thoughts and feelings; but very few men attain to the sensuous perception of spirits” (Bishop Ignatius, pp. 11—12).

“The soul, clothed in a body, closed off and separated by it from the world of spirits, gradually trains itself by the study of God’s law, or, what is the same thing, by the study of Christianity, and acquires the capability to distinguish good from evil (Heb. 5:14). Then the spiritual perception of spirits is granted to it, and, if this is in conformity with the purposes of God Who guides it, the sensuous perception of them also, since delusion and deception are for it now much less dangerous, while experience and knowledge are profitable.

“At the separation of the soul from the body by visible death, we again enter into the rank and society of spirits. From this it is evident that for a successful entry into the world of spirits it is essential to train oneself in good time in the law of God, that it is precisely for this instruction that there has been furnished us a certain amount of time, determined for each person by God for his pilgrimage on earth. This pilgrimage is called earthly life.

4. THE OPENING OF THE SENSES

“Men become capable of seeing spirits by a certain alteration of the senses, which is accomplished in a way that is unnoticeable and inexplicable to a man. He only notes in himself that he has suddenly begun to see what before this he had not seen and what others do not see, and to hear what before this he had not heard. For those who experience in themselves such an alteration of the senses, it is very simple and natural, even though not explainable to oneself and others; for those who have not experienced it, it is strange and not understandable. In the same way, it is known to all that men are capable of being immersed in sleep; but what kind of phenomenon sleep is, and in what way, unnoticed to oneself, we pass over from a condition of wakefulness to a condition of sleep and self-forgetfulness—this remains a mystery for us.

“The alteration of the senses by which a man enters into sensuous communion with the beings of the invisible world is called in Sacred Scripture the opening of the senses. The Scripture says: Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand (Numbers 22:3 1). Being surrounded by enemies, the Prophet Elisha, in order to calm his frightened servant, prayed and said: Lord, open his eyes that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw; and behold, the mountain was fill of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha (IV Kings 6:17—18).” (See also Luke 24:16—31.)

“From the quoted places of Sacred Scripture it is clear that the bodily organs serve as it were as doors and gates into the inner chamber where the soul is, and that these gates are opened and closed at the command of God. Most wisely and mercifully, these gates remain constantly closed in fallen men, lest our sworn enemies, the fallen spirits, burst in upon us and bring about our perdition. This measure is all the more essential in that we, after the fall, find ourselves in the realm of fallen spirits, surrounded by them, enslaved by them. Having no possibility to break in on us, they make themselves known to us from outside, causing various sinful thoughts and fantasies, and by them enticing the credulous soul into communion with them. It is not permitted for a man to remove the supervision of God and by his own means (by God’s allowance but not by His will) to open his own senses and enter into visible communion with spirits. But this does happen. It is obvious that by one’s own means one can attain communion only with fallen spirits. It is not characteristic of holy angels to take part in something not in agreement with the will of God, something not pleasing to God….“What attracts men into entering into open communion with spirits? Those who are light-minded and ignorant of Christianity in action are attracted by curiosity, by ignorance, by unbelief, without understanding that by entering into such communion they can cause themselves the greatest harm” (pp. 13—14).

“The idea that there is anything especially important in the sensuous perception of spirits is a mistaken one. Sensuous perception without spiritual perception does not provide a proper understanding of spirits; it provides only a superficial understanding of them. Very easily it can provide the most mistaken conceptions, and this indeed is what is most often provided to the inexperienced and to those infected with vain- glory and self-esteem. The spiritual perception of spirits is attained only by true Christians, whereas men of the most depraved life are the most capable of the sensuous perception of them…. A very few people are capable of this by their natural constitution,* (* I.e., by a mediumistic talent which can be inherited –Ed. note.) and to a very few the spirits appear because of some special circumstance in life. In the latter two cases a man is not subject to blame, but he must make every effort to get out of this condition, which is very dangerous. In our time many allow themselves to enter into communion with fallen spirits by means of magnetism (spiritism), in which the fallen spirits usually appear in the form of bright angels and deceive and delude by means of various interesting tales, mixing together truth with falsehood; they always cause an extreme disorder to the soul and even to the mind” (p. 19).

“Those who see spirits, even holy angels, sensuously should not have any fancies about themselves: this perception alone, in itself, is no testimony whatever of the merit of the perceivers; not only depraved men are capable of this, but even irrational animals (Numbers 22:23)” (p. 21).

5. THE DANGER OF CONTACT WITH SPIRITS

“The perception of spirits with the eyes of sense always brings harm, sometimes greater and sometimes less, to men who do not have spiritual perception. Here on earth images of truth are mixed together with images of falsehood (St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 2), as in a land in which good is mixed together with evil, as in the land of banishment of fallen angels and fallen men” (p. 23).

“One who perceives spirits sensuously can easily be deceived to his own harm and perdition. If, on perceiving spirits, he shows trust or credulity towards them, he will unfailingly be deceived, he will unfailingly be attracted, he will unfailingly be sealed with the seal of deception, not understandable to the inexperienced, the seal of a frightful injury in his spirit; and further, the possibility of correction and salvation is often lost. This has happened with many, very many. It has happened not only with pagans, whose priests were for the most part in open communion with demons; it has happened not only with many Christians who do not know the mysteries of Christianity and out of some circumstance or other have entered into communion with spirits; it has happened with many strugglers and monks who have perceived spirits sensuously without acquiring spiritual perception of them.

“The correct, lawful entry into the world of spirits is provided only by the doctrine and practice of Christian struggle. All other means are unlawful and must be renounced as worthless and ruinous. It is God Himself ‘Who leads the true struggler of Christ into perception (of spirits). ‘When God is guiding, the phantoms of truth, in which falsehood clothes itself, are separated from truth itself; then the struggler is given, first of all, the spiritual perception of spirits, revealing to him in detail and with precision the qualities of these spirits. Only after this are certain ascetics granted the sensuous perception of spirits, by which the knowledge of them attained by spiritual perception is completed” (p. 24).

6. SOME PRACTICAL ADVICE

Bishop Ignatius takes from the discourse of St. Anthony, in St. Athanasius’ Life of him (already mentioned above as a chief source of our knowledge of the activity of demons), practical advice for Christian strugglers on how to behave with regard to sensuous perceptions of spirits if they should happen to occur to one. This is of extreme value to all who wish to lead a true Christian spiritual life in our own days, when (for reasons we shall try to explain below) the sensuous perception of spirits has become much more common than heretofore. St. Anthony teaches:

“You must know the following for your protection. When any kind of vision presents itself, do not become frightened, but no matter what kind of vision it might be, manfully ask it first of all: ‘Who are you, and where do you come from?’ If it is a manifestation of saints, they will calm you and will turn your fear into joy. But if it is a demonic apparition, when it encounters firmness in your soul it will immediately waver, because the question serves as a sign of a brave soul. By asking such a question, Joshua son of Nun became convinced of the truth (Joshua 5:13), and the enemy did not hide from Daniel (Daniel 10:20)” (Bishop Ignatius, pp. 43—44; Lf’ of St. Anthony, English edition of Eastern Orthodox Books, p. 29).

After relating how even St. Symeon the Stylite was once almost deceived by a demon who appeared to him in the form of an angel in a fiery chariot (Lives of Saints, Sept. 1), Bishop Ignatius warns the Orthodox Christians of today: “If the saints have been in such danger of being deceived by evil spirits, this danger is even more frightful for us. If the saints have not always recognized demons who appeared to them in the form of saints and Christ Himself, how is it possible for us to think of ourselves that we will recognize them without mistake? The sole means of salvation from these spirits is absolutely to refuse perception of them and communion with them, acknowledging ourselves as unfit for such perception and communion.

“The holy instructors of Christian struggle … command pious strugglers not to trust any kind of image or vision if they should suddenly appear, not to enter into conversation with them, not to pay any attention to them. They command that during such apparitions one should guard oneself with the sign of the Cross, close one’s eyes, and in resolute awareness of one’s unworthiness and unfitness for seeing holy spirits, to entreat God that He might protect us from all nets and deceptions which are cunningly set out for men by the spirits of malice” (pp. 45—6).

Further, Bishop Ignatius quotes St. Gregory the Sinaite: “By no means accept it if you see anything sensuously or with the mind, inside or outside of you, whether it be an image of Christ or an angel or some saint, or if a light should be fancied or depicted by the imagination in the mind. For by nature it is characteristic of the mind itself to indulge in fantasies, and it easily forms the images it desires; this is usual in those who do not pay strict attention to themselves, and by this they do harm to themselves” (pp. 47—49).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Bishop Ignatius teaches: “The only correct entrance into the world of spirits is the doctrine and practice of Christian struggle. The only correct entrance into the sensuous perception of spirits is Christian advancement and perfection” (p. 53).

“When the time comes which is assigned by the one God and is known to Him alone, we will unfailingly enter the world of spirits ourselves. This time is not far from each of us! May the all-good God grant us to spend earthly life in such a way that during it we might break off communion with fallen spirits, and might enter into communion with holy spirits so that, on this foundation, having put off the body, we might be numbered with the holy spirits and not the fallen spirits!” (p. 67).

This teaching of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, written over a hundred years ago, could well have been written today, so accurately does it describe the spiritual temptations of our own times, when the “doors of perception” (to use the phrase popularized by one experimenter in this realm, Aldous Huxley) have been opened in men to a degree undreamed of in Bishop Ignatius’ day.

These words scarcely need any commentary. The perceptive reader may already have begun to apply them to the “after-death” experiences we have been describing in these pages and thereby have begun to realize the frightful danger for the human soul which these experiences represent. One who is aware of this Orthodox teaching cannot but look in amazement and horror at the ease with which contemporary “Christians” trust the visions and apparitions which are now becoming so common. The reason for this credulity is clear: Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, cut off for centuries now from the Orthodox doctrine and practice of spiritual life, have lost all capability for clear discernment in the realm of spirits. The absolutely essential Christian quality of distrust of one’s “good” ideas and feelings has become totally foreign to them. As a result, “spiritual” experiences and apparitions of spirits have become perhaps more common today than at any other time in the Christian era, and a gullible mankind is prepared to accept a theory of a new age of spiritual wonders, or a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” in order to explain this fact. So spiritually impoverished has mankind become, imagining itself to be “Christian” even while preparing for the age of demonic “miracles” that is a sign of the last times (Apocalypse 16:14).

Orthodox Christians themselves, it should be added, while theoretically being in possession of the true Christian teaching, are seldom aware of it, and often are as easily deceived as the non-Orthodox. It is time for this teaching to be recovered by those whose birthright it is!

Those who are now describing their “after-death” experiences reveal themselves to be as trusting of their experiences as any who have been led astray in the past; in all the contemporary literature on this subject, there are extremely few cases where a person seriously stops to question whether at least part of the experience might be from the devil. The Orthodox reader, of course, will ask this question and try to understand these experiences in the light of the spiritual teaching of the Orthodox Fathers and Saints.

Now we must go on and see what specifically happens to the soul, according to Orthodox teaching, when it leaves the body at death and enters into the realm of spirits.

__