OBITUARY

OBITUARY: ELDER SABBAS, MONK
OF THE CELL OF ST. NICHOLAS, KAPSALA, KARYES, MOUNT  ATHOS.

The respected Elder, Father Sabbas, had followed the policy of the nineteen ruling monasteries of Mount Athos, which believed, as do many people, that we must make certain concessions and accommodations in matters of Faith for a period of time. Since he was virtuous, with a sincere and good intention, the fathers who have only recently come to Mount Athos-the so-called New Holy Mountain Fathers-who hold communion with Ecumenists and commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarchate, would visit the Elder frequently. They would hold him up as an example to their disciples and would say that if the zealot dissent and protest were good, would not virtuous Father Sabbas belong to it?

However, when the Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios concelebrated with the Pope of Rome in December of 1987, the Elder roused himself; his soul could not bear to be found in such a blatantly Ecumenistic Church. Along with other ascetics, he protested and separated himself from all the other fathers of Mt. Athos who followed the nineteen monasteries. He would not go to church in any of those nineteen or in any of the cells or dependencies which followed them.

All the commemorators were in an uproar; from monastery and cell, many ran to persuade the Elder. But the frequent visits, which became burdensome, were to no avail.

Finally, the Elder was obliged to answer in writing one monk who troubled him frequently, thereby answering all the others troubling him, for they were well-organized and committed to using every means to draw the Elder out of Orthodoxy into the embrace of Ecumenism.
Below is the text of the Elder’s letter.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Cell of Saint Nicholas, Kapsala                                                                       August 13, 1991

Dear Father Nicodemos, Bless!

During your visit to our cell a few days ago, you repeated your un-Orthodox dogmatic pronouncements that we are outside the Church because we do not commemorate Patriarch Demetrios. You also made some other statements as well, for which cause we feel constrained to write the following for your fuller instruction, since the evidence and refutations we tendered during our conversation destroyed your peace and made you angry.

In the Sayings of the Desert Fathers it is written that when Abba Agatho was asked if he were proud, a fornicator, and a heretic, he answered that he confirmed the first two accusations, for it was profitable for his soul to do so, but not that he was a heretic, for that signifies separation from God. (1)

According to you (and according to all the monasteries of Mount Athos as well, except for the Monastery of Esphigmenou, the Skete of Prophet Elias, and many zealot Fathers), we are deceived and are schismatics. You find it difficult to admit that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is preaching heresy, because you would be required to admit that your holding communion with these wolves and not shepherds is worthy of condemnation, or you would have to cease following them, according to the command of all the holy Fathers and Councils.

You attempt to justify the Phanar, but their words and actions show you to be in error. In vain do you invoke the opinion of Father Paisios and of others who are indulgent with present conditions and make concessions, that is, they deal with it by “economy,” but when the time comes (supposedly when Demetrios shall enter into communion with the Pope, as you said), you will separate yourselves from whatever is not in concord with the teachings of the holy Fathers and Councils. You greatly deceive yourselves.

As for the admonitions to which you refer-whether of Elder Paisos, or of your neighbor Papa-Isaac, or of anyone else-which maintain that Demetrios rightly divides the word of truth, how can you expect us to accept them as being pleasing to God when they are completely contrary to Orthodox teaching? Since the Truth is betrayed, should it not be called inquity rather than economy, concession, accommodation, or indulgence? You maintain your stand because Elder Paisios said, “Demetrios is misled by the hierarchs around him to do that which he does not want,” and “If we stop commemorating [the Patriarch] we will be outside the Church!” and much more, to which can be applied the words of Saint John Chrysostom, “All their words are foolishness, and the tales of foolish children.” These words of theirs are the fruit of a new theology, which the Phanar used in the notorious Encyclical of 1920 by calling heretics “fellow heirs of the grace of God.”

You bring forward the words of Saint John Chrysostom, “Not even the blood of martyrdom blots out schism,” and of Saint Ignatius the God-bearer, “Let nothing be enacted without the bishop.” You conclude that when we separate ourselves from our bishop, we are outside the Church.

The Saints made these true pronouncements, however, in a time of Orthodoxy and Church serenity. Today, when the hurricane of the Ecumenist pan-heresy sweeps away even the elect, the words of the same Saints have force. “If your bishop be heretical, flee, flee, flee as from fire and a serpent” (Saint John Chrysostom). “If thy bishop should teach anything outside of the appointed order, even if he lives in chastity, or if he work signs, or if he prophesy, let him be unto thee as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, for he works the destruction of souls” (Saint Ignatius). If Demetrios rightly divided the word of truth, you would have been justified in your use of those quotations you took from the two Saints, but now you edit the Father’s writings to your taste, in order to justify your guilt for being a fellow-traveler of Demetrios, Parthenios of Alexandria, Iakovos of America, and Stylianos Harkianakis of Australia. Are all the many quotations from the holy Councils and Saints not enough for you? Or do you fear, perhaps, being cast out of the synagogue of the heretics? The fact that the other patriarchates hold communion with the Phanar is not really important. What is important is, who follows in the footsteps of the Saints and is with the truth? Parthenios, Patriarch of Alexandria, said that he recognizes Mohammed as an Apostle who worked for the Kingdom of God, and other such blasphemies which you know. There is no need for us to write again the heresies of Iakovos Koukouzis of America, and Stylianos Harkianakis of Austraila. You are in communion with these men as though they supposedly rightly divided the word of truth! Who is going to condemn Iakovos Koukouzis? Parthenios? or the committee of Phanariotes under Bartholomew which has been “investigating” for two years now whether Harkianakis is a heretic? (2) Do you not understand that they do not want to pronounce a verdict?

The Phanar promised the delegation of three abbots from Mount Athos that they would retract and correct Patriarch Demetrios’ statement to the United Press about receiving communion from the Latins, that they would replace Stylianos Harkianakis as president of the commission for theological dialogue, etc. Has anything been corrected to this day? Or do you believe that we have no responsibility, or guilt, and may remain in communion because Elder Paisios shamelessly says that the declarations and actions of Demetrios are not contrary to our doctrines and do not violate the truth?

History repeats itself. Saint Theodore the Studite, Saint Maximus the Confessor, and many other Christians who did not follow the hierarchy which at sundry times preached heresy, were all called schismatics by that hierarchy. Although Saint Gerasimus of the Jordan was served by a lion and was a wonderworker, he was in error because he would not accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council, drawing along with him thousands of monks in Palestine, until he was corrected by Saint Euthymius the Great and repented.

You could ask, “Could Elder Paisios and the seventy bishops of the State Church of Greece be in error?”

Do you want God to force them to confess Him? At the Iconoclast Council of 754 in the reign of 0Copronymus, we read in the minutes that fearsome acclamation of the 338 bishops present at the council, “Long live the King! The icons are idols and should either be destroyed or hung high so that they might not be venerated.” Do you find it hard to believe that seventy bishops can be deceived today, when, as you see, so many were deceived then? Nowadays, monks desire to gain mitres, abbatial staves, while observing only a nominal confession of Faith-that is, protesting somewhat, but not stopping the commemoration of the Patriarch, and tolerating all the innovations to the Gospel introduced by Demetrios, Iakovos, Parthenios, and those like them. Saint Theodore the Studite, however, writes that the work of the monk is not to tolerate even the least innovation in the Gospel of Christ.

At the concelebration in Rome, Demetrios did not receive the host from the Pope in order to avoid hostile reactions from “conservatives.” However, there in Rome, he did subscribe to the doctrine that the Latins possess the Mysteries of the Church, and he continues to do so. Is that not enough? When did the Saints and Christians of any century in which a heresy was widely preached ever react as do you, who continue to commemorate Demetrios? What precedent have you found in the history of the Church so you can say you are following it? If you are sons of the Saints (that is, imitators and followers of the Saints), “ye would have done the works of Abraham” as the Gospel says. In the time of Patriarch Beccus, the fathers of Mount Athos stopped commemorating him even though he had not been deposed by a Council; and because they remained steadfast in their adherence to the precepts of the Fathers (that is, had no communion with those who departed from the Orthodox Faith), Christ granted them the martyr’s crown. As for those who concelebrated with the commemorators of the Latin-minded “official” patriarch, Beccus, their corpses are found to this day, as is well-known, swollen, stinking, and undecomposed, to be an example to all.

You told us that if Demetrios does not go to confession for the things he has done, he will be damned. You are now admitting that you are following a man who is damning himself by what he is doing. For him to be damning himself [and indeed, for matters pertaining to the Faith and not personal and private sins] means that he is doing the work of the devil. Consequently, you yourself admit that you have the devil as a fellow-traveler.  Are you serious, Father Nicodemos, or are you jesting? If Athenagoras had “repented” and confessed his sin shortly before he died, then would he be saved? (3) Show me even one patristic witness which justifies remaining in a church that preaches heresy, as does that of the “meek and quiet Leader of Orthodoxy, Demetrios.” Would such an obedience to a hierarchy that does not rightly divide the word of truth sanctify us? If you do not wish to admit that the Monastery of Esphigmenou and so many zealot Fathers are worthy of honor-according to the Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Council-at least be silent and do not blaspheme by saying that they are schismatics and outside the Church. You ignore the existence of the Testament of Saint Mark Eugenicus of Ephesus, who did not want the Latin-minded even to come to his funeral.

First study and then make pronouncements. According to your way of thinking, Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Maximus the Confessor, and hosts of others who did not hold communion with heretics are outside the Church!

Do you see where your “new theology” leads? Who would ever have thought that fathers of the Holy Mountain would have as their bible the book The Two Extremes by Father Epiphanios Theodoropoulos? You recommend making protests like those recommended on pages 19 and 22 of that book, protests over-according to Ecumenists-”sacred canons which are not applicable in our times because they are lacking in love.” He also describes Athenagoras as “having a demonic love.” Nevertheless, he remained in communion with those who have “a demonic love.” Marvellous consistency!

We saw similar protests on the occasion when the representative of the Monastery of Grigoriou asked that it be recorded in the decisions of the Sacred Community that if the chief secretary were sent to Australia, he would not concelebrate there. The chief secretary finally did not go; but Father Basil, Abbot of Stavronikita, ignoring the decision of all the other monasteries, sent Father Tychon to “help” Archbishop Stylianos

Harkianakis. When Father Tychon returned, he was sent to the festival of the Cell of Bourazeri. There the representative of the Monastery of Grigoriou (Father Athanasios) concelebrated with Father Tychon and the rest. No commentary is needed.

Father Epiphanios Theodoropoulos was silenced when they refuted his errors some twenty years ago. But you, with the same untheological arguments, want to justify your communion with patriarchs who preach heresies “with bared head,” having a demonic love for heretics while persecuting the genuinely Orthodox, and so emulating Patriarch Beccus, the Emperor Copronymus, and all those like them. When you chant them many years and commemorate them, it is the same as if you said, “You are sound in the Faith, and obedience, honor, and commemoration are due to you.” You do not help them understand that they are walking upon an evil path; whereas if you had broken communion with them, mayhap they would have had pangs of conscience and would search for the truth. Your guilt for your reprehensible silence-which Saint Gregory Palamas calls a third kind of atheism-grows day by day, in spite of your so-called protests.

When the Latin-minded were coming here during the patriarchate of Beccus to enforce the union with the Latins, our Lady, the Virgin Mother, the Guardian of the Holy Mountain Athos, spoke herself, saying, “The enemies of my Son and of me are coming.”

Last year, when the successor of Beccus-Demetrios (the “Leader of Orthodoxy”!)-arrived, he found the Holy Mountain swathed in black from two weeks of continuous fires. (4) He that hath ears to hear, heareth the voice of the All-holy Mother of God.

May you find the path of good disagreement, as Saint Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain teaches in his Interpretation of the Fourteen Epistles of Saint Paul, saying, “If he [the abbot or bishop] is evil in Faith, that is, he believes heretical and blasphemous doctrines, flee from him, though he be an angel from Heaven.”

Elder Sabbas,
An un-monastic, but Orthodox, monk

The ever-memorable Elder remained staunch in his good confession until his repose in October of 1991, despite the many efforts of the “new Holy Mountain Fathers”? to persuade him to come over to their views. His worthy disciple and heir, Father Alypios, remembering the Will and Testament of Saint Mark of Ephesus, and following his example, would not permit the commemorators to hold memorial services at the grave of the Elder.

We pray that the example of the Elder Sabbas will find imitators.

Editor’s Note: Translated from the periodical Saint Agathangelos of Esphigmenou, November-December, 1991 (in Greek).

^? In 1965, the Ecumenical Patriarchate openly espoused the heresy of Ecumenism and broke the holy Canons by lifting the anathemas against the Roman Church. As a result of this action,  all of the monasteries of Mount Athos ceased to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch. Eventually however, through fear and intimidation, all but three of the monasteries resumed the commemoration. The three abbots who refused to resume the commemoration were Archimandrite Athanasios of Esphigmenou, who was a man filled with gifts of the Holy Spirit and respected by all on Athos; the second was Archimandrite Andrew of the Monastery of Saint Paul, and the third was Archimandrite Evdokimos of Xenophontos Monastery. In the instance of Archimandrite Athanasios, the whole monastery, to the last man, stood behind him, and thus the enemies of the Faith were not able to remove him. To this day, only the Monastery of Esphigmenou  has not resumed the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch, since, if anything, the espousal of the heresy of Ecumenism has progressively become much worse in that formerly glorious Church, which produced so many confessing and holy Saints. In the case of Archimandrites Andrew and Evdokimos, both were deposed and forcibly exiled from their monasteries.

All three holy confessors have since reposed, never having renounced their confession.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
¹ Sin and heresy, as the holy Fathers teach us, differ essentially: Sin is a transgression of God’s law, but heresy is an alteration of God’s law.
² Editor’s Note: Harkianakis was accused of preaching heresy by Metropolitan Augustine of Florina and the Orthodox faithful from Australia.
³Private confession suffices for the forgiveness of personal and private sins, but for public sins against the Faith, a public repentance and correction must also be made according to our Saviour’s words: “Whosoever, therefore, shall confess Me before men, him will I confess before My Father which is in Heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I deny before My Father which is in Heaven.”
⁴Editor’s Note: The fire lasted from the first of August to the fifteenth, that is, the whole of the fast of the Theotokos.

The Bible and Tradition

The Fathers did not understand theology as a theoretical or speculative science, but as a positive science in all respects. This is why the patristic understanding of Biblical inspiration is similar to the inspiration of writings in the field of the positive sciences.

Scientific manuals are inspired by the observations of specialists. For example, the astronomer records what he observes by means of the instruments at his disposal. Because of his training in the use of his instruments, he is inspired by the heavenly bodies, and sees things invisible to the naked eye. The same is true of all the positive sciences. However, books about science can never replace scientific observations. These writings are not the observations themselves, but about these observations.

This holds true even when photographic and acoustical equipment is used. This equipment does not replace observations, but simply aids in the observations and their recordings. Scientists cannot be replaced by the books they write, nor by the instruments they invent and use.

The same is true of the Orthodox understanding of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Neither the Bible nor the writings of the Fathers are revelation or the word of God. They are about the revelation and about the word of God.

Revelation is the appearance of God to the prophets, apostles, and saints. The Bible and the writings of the Fathers are about these appearances, but not the appearances themselves. This is why it is the prophet, apostle, and saint who sees God, and not those who simply read about their experiences of glorification. It is obvious that neither a book about glorification nor one who reads such a book can never replace the prophet, apostle, or saint who has the experience of glorification.

The writings of scientists are accompanied by a tradition of interpretation, headed by successor scientists, who, by training and experience, know w what their colleagues mean by the language used, and how to repeat the observations described. So it is in the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Only those who have the same experience of glorification as their prophetic, apostolic, and patristic predecessors can understand what the Biblical and Patristic writings are saying about glorification and the spiritual stages leading to it. Those who have reached glorification know how they were guided there, as well as how to guide others, and they are the guarantors of the transmission of this same tradition.

This is the heart of the Orthodox understanding of tradition and apostolic succession which sets it apart from the Latin and Protestant traditions, both of which stem from the theology of the Franks.

Following Augustine, the Franks identified revelation with the Bible and believed that Christ gave the Church the Holy Spirit as a guide to its correct understanding. This would be similar to claiming that the books about biology were revealed by microbes and cells without the biologists having seen them with the microscope, and that these same microbes and cells inspire future teachers to correctly understand these books without the use of the microscope.

And, indeed, the Franks believed that the prophets and apostles did not see God himself, except possibly with the exception of Moses and Paul. What the prophets and apostles allegedly did see and hear were phantasmic symbols of God, whose purpose was to pass on concepts about God to human reason. Whereas these symbols passed into and out of existence, the human nature of Christ is a permanent reality and the best conveyor of concepts about God.

One does not, therefore, need telescopes, microscopes, or a vision of God, but rather, concepts about invisible reality, which human reason is by nature allegedly capable of understanding.

Historians have noted the naivete’ of the Frankish religious mind which was shocked by the first claims for the primacy of observation over rational analysis. Even Galileo’s telescopes could not shake this confidence. However, several centuries before Galileo, the Franks had been shocked by the East Roman claim, hurled by Saint Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), of the primacy of experience and observation over reason in theology.

Today’s Latin theologians, who still use their predecessor’s metaphysical approach to theology, continue to present East Roman theologians, such as the hesychasts, as preferring ignorance to education in their ascent to union with God. This is equivalent to claiming that a scientist is against education because he insists on the use of telescopes and microscopes instead of philosophy in his search for descriptive analysis of natural phenomena.

The so-called humanist movement in Eastern Romania was an attempt to revive ancient Greek philosophy, whose tenets had already been rejected, long before modern science led to their replacement in the modern West. To present this so-called humanist movement as a revival of culture is to overlook the fact that the real issue was between the primacy of reason and that of observation and experience.

Mind/Heart Connection

” Healing the Nous ” with Fr. Meletios (Webber) – MP3 File

Holistic Healing in Byzantium

Conference on Holistic Healing in Byzantium:
Modern Adaptations

Keynote Address

by Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, Cyprus

(mp3 file)

___

our strange, counterfeit age

THIS AGE IS a strange age. We know that throughout the extent of human history there have been moments of spiritual and cultural crisis, of moral decline and restoration; there have been moments also of a so-called “revaluation of values.” But only in our age has there arisen in the world a manifestation much more frightening and menacing: namely, the loss of values, their catastrophic disappearance from the life, from the spiritual and intellectual horizon, of contemporary humanity.

One may readily observe today the loss of normal conceptions of nation and family, the loss of the value of life itself, in itself and as the greatest gift of God, and the striving to get away from the obligation to live – in the fantasy – world of narcotics, so to speak in a temporary suicide And parallel to the disappearance of true values there appear counterfeit values. For today literally everything is counterfeited: Christianity is counterfeited, religiousness is counterfeited, the very Gospel is counterfeited; culture in its best manifestations, the striving for peace, etc., etc. — everything is steeped in lie and falsehood, and a man With a living soul and conscience suffocates in the reign of the lie and the counterfeit.

- By Saint Philaret the New Confessor of New York

__

St. Philaret’s Incorrupt Relics

HERETICS AND THEIR TEACHINGS

Now as we have mentioned earlier, heretics made a philosophical distinction between God’s essence and energy.

Although the Biblical distinction is not a philosophical distinction, the heretics took the biblical distinction and turned it into a philosophical distinction. These heretics include Paul of Samosata, Lucian, the followers of Lucian (or the Arians), and afterwards the Nestorians who belong to the same tradition as those who preceded them.

Paul of Samosata taught that there is not a natural union of the two natures in Christ, but a union by an act of will, by energy or, as he himself mentions in certain passages, “a union in terms of quality.” In other words, there was no union in Christ between divine nature and the Word’s human nature, but a union between God’s energy and the energy of the Word’s human nature. This is why Paul of Samosata was condemned as a heretic.

But he was not only a heretic on account of the way in which he made the distinction between essence and energy in God, he was also a heretic on account of his Trinitarian teaching. That is, he denied the existence of the three Persons in the Holy Trinity. He did not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were permanent distinctions in God. Instead, he taught that they were temporary distinctions that God has only one essence and one Hypostasis, which has its own energy, and this energy, can be the Word or the Holy Spirit.

So the Hypostasis of God the Father has the energy of the Word and the energy of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Word and the Holy Spirit have become two uncreated energies of God. For Paul of Samosata, there is the incarnation of the energy of God, but not the incarnation of the Hypostasis of God the Word. Hence, Christ is not God incarnate, but an inspired human being or a human being in whom God dwells. This is why Paul of Samosata was condemned as a heretic not only for his Trinitarian teaching, but also for his Christological teaching. In other words, he was a heretic twice over.

But afterwards, his disciple Lucian modified the teaching of Paul of Samosata. And you can recognize this modification only if you take into account the fact that Paul of Samosata was a heretic. Lucian adjusted the above teaching, because Paul of Samosata was condemned. The followers of Paul of Samosata – Lucian and his disciples who were Arians – ¬attached to the Godhead the two Hypostases of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, an addition that Paul of Samosata would not accept. And they did this, so that they would not share his fate and be condemned as heretics as well.

Since we do not possess the writings of Lucian himself, we have to turn to the writings of the Arians, who were students of Lucian, in order to learn that this adjustment was made. In other words, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and others inform us that this modification was made. Since Paul of Sam as at a was condemned on account of his refusal to accept Christ’s essential union with the Hypostasis of the Word as well as Christ’s natural union with the essence of God, they added that the incarnation was also by nature and by hypostasis.

So the followers of Lucian taught that God is three hypostases – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit –, that Christ is God and man, and that the union of the two natures in Christ is natural and moreover by essence. If someone were to encounter this adjustment, he would say, “Hmm, they teach just like the Orthodox. How can we take offense at them and at their disciple Arius? After all, even Arius said that the Word was begotten of the Father before the ages, which is precisely what all the Church Fathers were saying. So why should the Arians and Arius be heretics?”

But the Arians or followers of Lucian made a philosophical distinction between essence and energy in God and this distinction put them in the position of being compelled to teach that the Father and the Son cannot be related by essence, because a relation by essence means a relation by necessity. This is why God cannot beget the Word by nature, but creates the Word by energy and an act of will. After all, God cannot have compulsory relations with another essence. The Arians went so far as to accept that the Word is a hypostasis, that the Father is a hypostasis, and that they are two pre-creation hypostases, or hypostases that existed before the creation of the world. But they could not admit the possibility that the hypostasis of God the Father and the hypostasis of the Word were related by essence. The two hypostases had to be related by energy and an act of will They claimed that God the Father has relations with all hypostases and all beings by an act of will and by energy, but not by essence, because God is absolutely free and not subject to any necessity. So if ‘by essence’ means ‘by necessity,’ it follows that the Father does not beget the Word by essence, but by energy or by an act of will.

Although this theory is at the heart of Arius’s teaching, it is derived from Paul of Samosata who did not accept the dogma of the Holy Trinity or a real incarnation. After all, according to Paul of Samosata, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not stand for three hypostases, but the word ‘Father’ does represent the single hypostasis of the Father. So in God there is one hypostasis and there is one essence.

And this one hypostasis or essence of God has an energy that is called the Word and another energy that is called the Holy Spirit. The Word [Logos] is, for him, God’s reasonable [logiki] energy, while the Holy Spirit is God’s loving energy.

So in Paul of Samosata’s teaching, there is one hypostasis, one essence, with one energy, which is reasonable, creative, preserving, loving, and so forth. But these energies of God are grounded in Paul of Samosata’s philosophical distinction between God’s essence and energy. He really did make this distinction, but what else did he do? He identified the Father with the essence or hypostasis, and separated Him from the energy, which are the Word and the Holy Spirit.

For Paul of Samosata, God is not related to anything by essence. The energy of the Word and the energy of the Holy Spirit do not create a problem for Paul of Samosata, because these energies are uncreated. But the Incarnation does create a problem. How does God become flesh? In his system, the uncreated energy of God that is called ‘the Word’ becomes flesh, and a man who is named ‘Christ’ is begotten of the Virgin, and this Word dwells within that man. Who is this Word? He is the Uncreated Word Who, according to Paul of Samosata, is an energy of God.

So in his teaching, Christ has His own human nature and hypostasis, and the energy of God, which is called ‘the Word’, dwells within Christ. This is the reason why Christ is the Word, but He is not the incarnation of an hypostasis and a nature, but the incarnation of an energy of God.

Of course, when Paul of Samosata was alive, essence and hypostasis meant the same thing, because this distinction between essence and hypostasis is a later distinction, as is the distinction between nature and hypostasis. So Paul of Samosata was condemned at two councils in Antioch around the year 277 AD. And he was condemned because he did not accept that there are truly three Persons in the Holy Trinity, but he degraded two of the Persons to energies and refused to accept the essential union of the two natures in Christ.

At the time of these councils, the expression ‘by essence’ was used. Of course, the terms ‘essence’ and ‘hypostasis’ were later distinguished from one another and the more correct term ‘hypostasis’ was used. This is why the Fathers spoke about ‘hypostatic union’ and ‘natural union,’ but rarely used the expression ‘essential union.’ Of course, you can use that expression; it is not wrong. After all, there is an essential union in Christ, because there is a natural union in Christ. Nevertheless, the union is chiefly hypostatic since the Word alone became flesh.

We have already mentioned the basic argument of the early Christians against the Aristotelians. It was so widely and successfully used by the heretics against the idolaters that in spite of the fact that Paul of Samosata was condemned for using this philosophical distinction between essence and energy in God, this philosophical distinction continued to sprout up again in the form of new heresies. This is how we can confirm the fact that the philosophical foundation is the same for the teaching of Paul of Samosata, Arianism, and Nestorianism. This fact means that this line of argumentation against the idolaters was so very strong that it had become very deeply rooted in Christian tradition. After all, it was the reason why many idolaters became Christians.

Paul of Samosata was condemned on two grounds. First, he was condemned for rejecting the hypostatic Word. Secondly, he was condemned for rejecting the real incarnation of the essence of God—that is, the essential union or two natures in Christ. These positions are in turn the foundations for the Arian heresy.

So as we have already mentioned, on account of Paul of Samosata’s condemnation, his grandchildren, the Arians, made an adjustment in his teaching. Perhaps they did so in order to keep their positions in the Church and to continue to enjoy the benefits that accompany those positions. But what did Arius do to avoid condemnation in addition to Lucian’s adjustment that we referred to earlier?

Arius introduces an hypostatic Word alongside of the unhypostatic Word that he still retains. So on the one hand, Arius’s writings refer to an uncreated unhypostatic Word, or an uncreated energy of God that is called ‘the Word,’ and thus retain a feature of the older teaching. On the other hand, his writings introduce a hypostatic Word who is a created being, and who is the one who becomes flesh. Although this hypostatic Word is related to God by essence—that is, by necessity—because he is dependent upon God, God is not related to this hypostatic Word by essence, but only by energy and by an act of will. So God is free with respect to the hypostatic Word, but this hypostatic Word is not free with respect to God. He is a slave that is inferior to God as well as a created being who becomes an instrument for creation, and so forth.

According to Arius, this hypostasis of the Word, this creation of God, is the one who became flesh. Of course, He became flesh by necessity and not by an act of will. This hypostatic Word is also united by essence with Christ’s human nature, but for Arius Christ’s human nature is not complete in and of itself, because the hypostatic Word takes the place of Christ’s mind. So the human Christ has a created nous, intellect and soul, but the guiding principle [logos] of His created human existence is not the normal guiding principle [logos] that every human being has.201 Instead, in Christ, the created hypostatic Word [Logos], created before the ages, takes the place of the created human guiding principle [logos].202

So in this way, the Arians temporarily avoided being condemned like Paul of Samosata, because they seemingly accepted three hypostases as well as a natural and essential union in Christological doctrine. But in order to make this concession, they inserted an energy called the uncreated Word between the hypostasis of the Father and the hypostatic Word. This energy is what created the hypostatic Word. God fashions His hypostatic Word by means of His uncreated Energy or uncreated Word. So by energy and by an act of will, God fashions the hypostatic Word and an energy of God comes between the hypostasis of the Father and the hypostasis or the Word.

So the Son of God or the created hypostatic Word is the Son of an act of will or the Son of an energy. This is a basic doctrine for the Arians. As the entire created cosmos is the result of God’s uncreated energy, in like manner the hypostatic Word is also a result of God’s uncreated energy. So the Orthodox and the Arians differ, because the Orthodox reject the idea that the Word could be a result or the Father’s energy and maintain that the Word possesses all the uncreated energies of the Father. According to the Orthodox, if an energy belongs to the Father, it also belongs to the Word. Both of Them possess the self-same energies and neither One of Them results from the energy of the Other. But according to the Arians, the hypostatic Word is the product and result or the Father’s energy.

At any rate, it was very difficult for the Church to discover Arius’s heresy. In the beginning, many Orthodox did not realize that it was a heresy. Two teachings, however, caused it to betray itself.

The first clue was that Arius said that the Father fashioned and begot the hypostatic Word before the ages, but ex nihilo (that is, not from the Father). But in the mind of the Fathers, nothing ex nihilo exists before the ages. Everything that exists before the ages is uncreated and from the Father. The creation of the ages is what begins creation ex nihilo. Afterwards follows the creation of the angels and then the creation of time.

Augustinian tradition has the notion that God is the eternal Present and that for God everything is always in the present, including both things from the past and things in the future. In other words, both past and future form a continuous present for God. This notion led Augustine and his followers in Roman Catholicism to reason that if man could be liberated from time, then he would be able to grasp the continuous present or the eternal present. And when man would grasp that, he would be able to comprehend the uncreated and even envisage the essence of God. This entire theory about time developed by Augustine was decisive for the course taken by the Scholastic tradition.

In the Patristic tradition, however, there is a sharp distinction between the ages and time. Although time exists within the ages, all created beings are not circumscribed by time, because there are certain created beings (such as the ranks of angels, the demons, and the souls or the departed) who are independent of time and do not live in time, but in the ages. This is the reason why they can move at lightning speed. This is why angels, demons, and the souls of the departed saints can move about so quickly that it seems as though they are in many places at the same time. In other words, it seems that they are not restricted by time and space.

The second due that betrays Arius’s heresy concerns the Incarnation. Throughout the duration of the conflict between the Orthodox and the Arians, their respective teachings intersected at certain points. They both taught that God is the only One Who knows His essence and that God has an essential energy that is distinct from His essence (that is, the distinction between essence and energy). This is the reason why at the time of creation God does not create the world through His essence, but by an act of will or through His energy. So there is a union between God’s uncreated energy and creation. Of course the various forms of God’s uncreated energy differ from one another. After all God’s creative energy is not the same as His preserving energy, His purifying energy, His illumining energy, or His glorifying energy. They are not the same because, if they were the same, then all creation would participate in the glorifying energy of God. All these observations stem from the Fathers’ experience of theosis and lay the foundation for their teaching in response to the heretics. In other words, the starting point for the Patristic teaching is the ability to differentiate and observe distinctions between the energies of God.

The Arians took these observations and turned them into philosophical propositions. Although they accepted the distinction between essence and energy, they fought against the Church by claiming that the Word does not know the essence of God. They claimed that the proof of this is the fact that the Word does not possess all of God’s energies, since He does not know the Day of Judgment. They claimed that this proves that He is ignorant of certain things that only the Father knows. Consequently, since He does not possess all knowledge, this means that He also does not possess God’s essence. In other words, the fact that He does not have knowledge of all God’s energies is proof that He also does not know the essence of God.

In this dispute, both the Arians and the Orthodox went through the entire Bible, divided it into sections, made three columns, one for each Person of the Holy Trinity, and recorded one by one in each column all the energies that are mentioned in the Bible. They would write down one set of energies as the energies of the Father, another set of energies as the energies of the Son, and yet a third set of energies as the energies of the Holy Spirit. In other words, they arranged this information in a table. This is how the Orthodox were able to determine that all the energies that the Father possesses, the Son possesses as well, and that all the energies that the Father and the Son possess, the Spirit also possesses. Having said this – that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have the same energies – the Orthodox could conclude that They also have the same essence, since these energies are the natural energies of the essence. So the three hypostases have communion of essence and essential energies. This is what the Fathers taught.

But, then Arius came on the scene and said “Hold on! That is not how it is. Although the Father has all these energies, the Word does not have all of them. The Word only has some of these energies.” Afterwards, he said that the Holy Spirit does not even have all the energies that the Son has. This is how a conflict was provoked that lasted for years, from the First Ecumenical Council (325 AD) until the Second Ecumenical Council (381 AD).

The Church Fathers responded that the Arians’ assertion that at ‘by essence’ means ‘by necessity’ was not true. Therefore, the philosophical problem posed by Arius does not have anything to do with the Father begetting the Word by essence, because just as ‘by an act of will’ does not mean ‘by necessity’ in God, likewise ‘by essence’ does not mean ‘by necessity’ in God. And when we speak about something taking place ‘by essence,’ we begin by looking at the experience of theosis and not by looking into some philosophical problem.

But let’s suppose that the problem were philosophical. We know that there is no similarity between the created and the uncreated. The existence of something in creation does not imply that it also exists in God. When we speak about God, we use human language and human concepts, but nothing implies that these words and concepts are fitting for God, literally speaking, simply because during the experience of theosis, all prophecies and interpretations of Holy Scripture, all languages and concepts as well as all human language that refers to God, passes away, because God transcends all things human.

There is a beautiful passage in St. Dionysios the Areopagite’s writings in which he tells us that, during the experience of theosis, man discerns that God is neither Unity nor Trinity, that God is not One, that God is not God, is not Love, and so forth. And the reason for this is that no name or concept exists that is capable of conveying what God is. Man cannot grasp God. It is impossible. Concepts and words are used only to guide man to God, but not to conveyor explain anything about God.

The core of the Arian teaching about God is that ‘by essence’ and ‘by nature’ mean ‘by necessity,’ while ‘by energy’ and ‘by an act of will’ mean ‘freedom.’ So, since God is free, they make this distinction between essence and energy in God in order to safeguard God’s freedom. In this way, God creates the world in absolute freedom, without the creation of the world being a necessity of His essence or nature. In other words, He created the world solely because He wanted to do so. If He did not want to do so, He would not have created the world.

In this way the arguments of the Platonists and the Aristotelians were invalidated (because God is not obligated to create something in order to perfect Himself), as were the arguments of the Gnostics, who saw creation in terms of their theory of emanations from the highest being, so that the creation of the world ends up being portrayed in terms of negation, weakness, or ignorance – a downward fall from the highest being.

Now, this philosophical line of thought that the heretics made standard in the region of Antioch was extremely powerful and a great many idolaters became Christians on account of these arguments. In spite of this fact, the Church rejected this line of reasoning. But why would the Church reject it?

Arius accused Athanasios the Great of introducing necessity into God by saying that the Father begets the Word by nature and not by an act of will, as Arius maintained. Arius’s accusation was that Athanasios’s statement was like an affirmation that the Father is compelled by necessity to beget the Word and cause the Holy Spirit to process. Nevertheless, the Fathers consider the generation of the Word and the procession of the Holy Spirit to be natural to God and not a matter of God’s volition. Of course, the Incarnation does take place by God’s act of will; so the natural union of the two natures of Christ does exist in the Incarnation. So why did the Fathers reject this teaching of Arius? What was wrong with Arius’s teaching?

Arius was in agreement with apophatic theology that man cannot know God’s essence. According to the Patristic tradition, God is incomprehensible and unknowable in His essence. The same held true in the early Western tradition with the exception of Augustine. When the Fathers say that God is known through His energy, this does not mean that we have an intellectual knowledge about God’s energy, but that those in a state of illumination and theosis participate in His energy. According to the Fathers, although certain energies of God can become known intellectually from the effects God has on created nature, real knowledge about God’s energies is found in the experience of illumination and theosis. Real knowledge about God’s energies cannot be found in intellectual knowledge, which is the result of observation and philosophical reflection on God’s influence on creation.

Now Arius was so devoted to apophatic theology and insisted so emphatically that God is incomprehensible and unknowable in His essence that he reaches the point of saying that even the Word Himself does not know God’s essence. But even if we were to say that the Word Himself does not know God’s essence, if we were to accept this hypothesis that God is not even related by essence to the Word, why does it necessarily follow that ‘by essence’ means ‘by necessity’ in God? Does it follow simply because this is what happens in nature to a seed?

But in the meantime the Nestorian heresy appeared. And while the Arians taught that God could not be related by essence to a being with another essence or to another hypostasis, Theodore of Mopsuestia said that God is related by essence to the hypostasis of the Word as well as to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, but not to beings who are created ex nihilo. So he accepted that, within the Holy Trinity, the Father is related by essence to the Word and to the Holy Spirit, but he also taught that the Holy Trinity is not related in such a way with created beings. This is the reason why the shape of his Trinitarian thought was accepted as being more or less Orthodox, but he was quite mistaken in his thought about the Incarnation, because he could not accept that in Christ, the Word was hypostatically and naturally united with His human nature. In other words, he rejected the natural union of the two natures in Christ, because he held to the philosophical presupposition that God’s relations by essence are relations by necessity, and that His relations by energy and by volition are relations of freedom. This is the Nestorian heresy that refused to accept the Word’s natural union with his human nature, but accepted a union by an act of will and according to His good pleasure.

Up until this point, the arguments against the heretics are formed in a similar way. The Church Fathers opposed the position of both the Arians and the Nestorians by stating that ‘by nature’ does not mean ‘by necessity.’ Nature does not mean coercion. But why do they say this? If a seed from a tree is watered and cared for, can that seed ever say for itself, “I am not going to grow?” Of course not, because according to Aristotle the seed contains an inward entelechy so that, under the right conditions, the seed spontaneously develops into a tree whether it wants to or not. In this way, the seed behaves according to nature or according to its essence. In other words, in a favorable climate an inward necessity propels it towards perfection so that it becomes a tree.

Aristotle took this natural process from the created sphere as an example and applied it to the uncreated realm. But whenever you take a category from created nature and attribute it to uncreated nature, you go off course. It is a mistake. With this mistake, the idolaters put forward their argument that God is in need of the world in order to be perfected and that He created the world in order to be perfected. The heretics in turn opposed the idolaters’ line of reasoning with their own argument. Granted, the heretics dealt with the idolaters, but they did so on the basis of the philosophical distinction between essence and energy in God. Using this distinction, they supposedly relieved God from being coerced into creating the world. This distinction allows for God to be free to create the world if He so wills and sets Him apart from a seed that will develop into a tree, whether it wants to do so or not, because it cannot behave differently. But the Fathers rejected this argument that was put forward by the followers of Paul of Samosata and Arius. Why did they reject it?

According to the Arians, what takes place by an act of will is a freely chosen activity or energy, while what takes place by essence is an activity or energy resulting from coercion. Theodore of Mopsuestia said that beings that are homoousia or of the same essence are exceptions to this rule. In other words, entities that are of the same essence, such as the three Persons in the Trinity, can be related by essence, since God is the necessary Being or the One Who necessarily exists. I n this way, the Nestorians accepted that in the Holy Trinity, the Father begets the Son by essence and makes the Holy Spirit proceed by essence. However, in the Incarnation, the Nestorians claimed that the Word could not possibly be related by essence to Christ’s human nature. This is the reason why the Incarnation only takes place by good pleasure or by energy. This is also the reason why they were condemned.

Arius was condemned because he insisted that the Father was related to the Word and the Holy Spirit by energy and not by essence. The Nestorians were condemned because they did not accept the natural or hypostatic union in Christ between the Word and Christ’s human nature. In other words, although the Nestorians made an exception for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, they apparently held on to this philosophical principle in their Christology so that they would be able to preserve their philosophy for missionary purposes with idolaters. But then the Church came along and told them that this argument is invalid not only in Trinitarian doctrine but also in Christology. In other words, these are not cases where you can apply the principle that what takes place ‘by essence’ takes place ‘by necessity.’ So how are we to pass judgment on the heretics’ claim that in God what takes place ‘by essence’ takes place ‘by necessity’ and that what lakes place ‘by an act of will’ and ‘by energy’ implies freedom?

This line of reasoning covers the period up to the Fifth Ecumenical Council and reappears in Scholastic theology, which followed the theology of Augustine. And we can see the issues raised by this argument present throughout the philosophical discussions at the Ecumenical Councils as well as in the Western history of philosophy until our time. There are many people who do not accept the Christian teaching about the creation of the world, because they cannot picture a God Who does not have a need to create the world for His own perfection. So the question of freedom remains an important issue.

The Fathers speak about Orthodox doctrine with great simplicity, but their writings become difficult when they begin to deal with heresies. So how did the Fathers handle the Arians and the Nestorians on this subject? How did Athanasios the Great of Alexandria and Cyril of Alexandria respond to Theodore of Cyrrhus and Nestorius on these subjects? The same response happens to have been given to all the heretics. The same response given to the heretics at the First Ecumenical Council is also given to the heretics at the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.

And this is their response. Categories such as necessity and freedom, which are taken from the created world, are irrelevant with respect to God. Since there is no similarity between God and created beings, the philosophical problem posed by Aristotle concerning potential and active states is also non-existent in discourse about God. Aristotelian philosophical categories are taken from nature. Why in nature does something in a potential state change into an actual stale, given the right conditions? Because that is how its nature is. 111 other words, there is something within its nature that forces it to develop into its final form. But since there is no similarity between the created and the uncreated, all attempts in both Holy Scripture and theology to describe the experiences where the uncreated is revealed are attempts to describe the indescribable, even though it is literally impossible to do so.

God is indescribable. So we cannot use Aristotle’s entelechy as a philosophical model, because entelechy is based on observations of created nature. We also cannot cite rules from Aristotle’s philosophy, because these rules are also taken from visible creation. We cannot even use his own ‘Metaphysics’, because some of the subjects that he examines ‘after physics’ are also visible. We cannot apply any of these principles to God, Who is a Person Who does not resemble anything created.

For example, we say that this person is free if he does some things on account of nature (because he cannot do otherwise or avoid doing so) and other things by an act of will, if he wants to do them. This distinction between what takes place by nature and what takes place by an act of will is clearly apparent in human life. For instance, if someone wants to have children, there is usually in this case a combination of what is accomplished by nature and what is accomplished by an act of will. Someone cannot have children only by an act of will by simply using his brain. His decision to have children does not automatically produce them. There has to be a combination of volition and action. In this example, a person does not act solely on account of nature. His action is also thoughtfully based on his knowledge and analysis of his requirements, needs, and desires. And so he makes his decision. The ability to act in one way on account of nature and to act in another way by an act of will is a unique feature of created life informed by reason. Nevertheless, these categories cannot be applied to God. This is the Fathers’ response. Hence, the philosophical distinction between essence and energy in God, which is based on Aristotelian philosophical categories, does not make sense as far as God is concerned. It cannot be applied to God. The distinctions that the Fathers do make between essence and energy stem from the experience of theosis.

The underlying heresy at the root of all these heretical movements and philosophical trends is a betrayal of apophatic theology, which is a betrayal of the teaching that there is absolutely no similarity between the created and the uncreated realm. Hence, we cannot fit God within categories taken from Aristotelian philosophy or from an anti-Aristotelian philosophy, which takes its place. When we use the term ‘anti-Aristotelian philosophy,’ we mean that philosophy which is based on the distinction between God’s essence and energy and which is derived from the experience of theosis, but is converted into a philosophy by the heretics who turn this distinction into a philosophical syllogism. In the heretics’ hands, the Patristic distinction from experience becomes an ontological distinction.

But the Patristic distinction does not have anything to do with ontology. You will realize this if you read Dionysios the Areopagite who says that when you reach theosis, you realize that God is not Unity, God is not Trinity, God is not One, God is not even God. In other words, all the names and concepts that a person uses along the path towards theosis are all set-aside during the experience of theosis, because God is not identical with any of the names or concepts that man attributes to Him. This ‘knowledge’ is derived from the experience of glorification and theosis. St. Paul describes this very clearly when he writes, “whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”203 This is what St. Dionysios the Areopagite is saying.

So the Fathers based their refutation of both Arianism and Nestorianism on apophatic theology. And I stress the fact that even Arianism was refuted on this basis, because Arianism appears to be apophatic, although it is not apophatic in reality. After all, what does it mean when Arius says that even the Word does not know the essence of God? All right, the Word does not know the essence of God, but where did Arius learn that what takes place ‘by essence’ takes place ‘by necessity’ in God? In other words, Arius betrays himself, because where did Arius learn that God’s essence is the necessary being?

In Scholastic theology, they speak about the necessary being (Who is God according to them), but this way of thinking is nonexistent in Patristic theology, because, given the fact that we do not know God’s essence, we cannot even attribute to God the category of the necessary being.

This is why the Fathers say that if created entities are beings, then God is non-being; and that if God is Being, then created entities are non-beings. This means that there is no similarity between the created and the uncreated. This doctrine is the most basic doctrine of Orthodox theology and results from the experience of theosis and not from philosophical reflection. Apophatic theology is not a philosophy. No, it is synonymous with the experience of theosis and with that experience alone.

The Church Fathers set out to prove that the Word knows the Father’s essence and has all the Father’s energy. Behind this undertaking, there is a line of reasoning based on certain general rules that both the Arians and the Orthodox followed.

First of all, both camps agreed that God’s essence is distinct from His energy. Both camps inherited the distinction between essence and energy from tradition. In other words, they both inherited the teaching that, although creatures cannot participate in God’s essence, certain created beings can participate in God’s singular energy that can be differentiated into many separate energies. Yet these certain created beings cannot participate in all the forms of God’s energy, but only in those forms of which God permits those created beings to partake. For example, all created beings participate in God’s creative and providential energy (Divine Providence), but out of all these created beings, only certain created beings participate in God’s knowing or glorifying energy. Glorifying energy is the energy by means of which man can behold God.

In the Patristic tradition, there are two kinds of theosis. The first kind of theosis is essential theosis or the theosis of God’s essence. It involves possessing God’s essence and only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit participate in this theosis, because the Holy Trinity alone knows the essence of tile Holy Trinity.

The only part of creation to participate in this kind of theosis is the human nature of Christ [the God-man]. Hence, the essence of God is not only theosis (union or vision) for Christ as God [the Word], but also for Christ as the God¬-man. In other words, Christ’s human nature does not simply participate in the uncreated energies of God alone, but it also participates in God’s essence [by virtue of the hypostatic union]. This theosis is the reason why the union in Christ of the two natures—divine and human—is a union by essence, by hypostasis, and by nature. You can find this terminology in the Church Fathers.

On account of the hypostatic union between the Word and Christ’s human nature, Christ knows the essence of the Holy Trinity and is a fount of God’s glory or a source of the uncreated energies of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. After all, each Person in the Holy Trinity is also a natural source of uncreated energies, since the three Persons have the uncreated essence of the Father.

Of course, the Word and the Spirit have the essence from the Father. Together with the essence, they also have the essential energy of the essence and the essential power of the essence from the Father. They do not participate in the essence of the Father by grace. They possess the essence of the Father, because the Father gave Them what He Himself has. All things that the Father has204 He gave both to the Word and to the Holy Spirit.

Now the Father is an hypostasis and has unbegottenness as the mode of His existence, but He also has His essence as well as the essential energy of the essence. The Father is the cause of the Word’s existence as an hypostasis, but He is not the cause of the existence of the Word’s essence or of the Word’s energy, because the Father gave His own essence and essential energy to the Word. Hence, the Word has the Father’s essence and energy by nature. In other words, the Father’s essence and energy are identical to the Word’s essence and energy. Nevertheless, the Word has His existence–that is, the existence of His hypostasis—from the Father, but in a mode that is different from the way that He has the essence and energy. This is the reason why the Fathers distinguish the mode of existence for the hypostasis of the Word (as well as for the Holy Spirit) from the communion of essence and energy. The hypostasis of the Word is begotten of the Father, while the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

So the three Persons of the Holy Trinity have a communion of essence and energy, but not a communion of hypostases. This is why the Fathers say that there is a communion of the essence between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not a communion of Persons. The Persons or the hypostases are not communicable. This requires special attention, because there are some books in circulation that speak about a communion of Persons in the Holy Trinity or about a communion of hypostases. An attempt is made to construct a sociology for the Christian faith on the basis of this terminology, even though the Holy Trinity, naturally, does not bear any relation to human society. If we were to create a sociology that is related to the Persons of the Holy Trinity, we would have to say that the Fathers teach an anti-sociology or an anti-sociability between persons, since they clearly say that the Persons or the Holy Trinity are incommunicable.205

Arius did not accept these distinctions, because he understood communion as a partial communion in energy. However, this communion is not merely communion, it also means participation. In other words, the Son participates in the divinity of the Father even as the Father is able to participate in the Son. A human being in a state of theosis is able to participate in the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but he does not become a fount of God’s essence. Someone in a state of theosis can and, in fact, does become a source of divine grace, but not a source of grace by essence. He becomes a source of grace only by grace, energy, and God’s good pleasure, but he can never become a source of grace by essence. Hence, what happens to the saints when they reach theosis is different from the case of Christ, because the theosis of the saints involves God’s energy, while the theosis of Christ involves God’s essence. However, this is a point that the heretics never quite grasped.

During the Arian controversy, certain characteristic terms took shape that were used by the Fathers of that time and that have continued to be used by all the Church Fathers following the First Ecumenical Council. Before this council, the Fathers’ terminology for these topics lacked a certain clarity. After the First Ecumenical Council, the terms were partially, though not completely, clarified. The final clarification in terminology took place during the Second Ecumenical Council when the distinction between essence and hypostasis was introduced. Before this council, the Cappadocian Church Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and others) were the only Fathers who unequivocally supported this distinction between essence and hypostasis. Meanwhile, the rest of the Fathers continued to use terms of lesser clarity on this question.

Many conservative Orthodox Fathers did not like the term homoousios, meaning ‘of the same essence’ (consubstantialis), and were opposed to its use because they thought there was a danger of misinterpreting it to mean tautoousios or ‘identity’ (which would mean that the Father is identical to the Son). After all, at the time of Paul of Samosata’s condemnation, homoousios meant tautoousios. But after the meaning of essence [ousia] was distinguished from that of hypostasis, the danger of homoousios signifying tautoousios – that is, ‘of the same essence’ signifying ‘identity’ – disappeared. From that point on, homoousios was used to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the selfsame essence. In other words, They have the same essence, but not the selfsame hypostasis. There is an identity of essence and energy, but not an identity of hypostasis, because the Father is a hypostasis, the Son is a hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit is a hypostasis. The three Persons have a common essence and essential energy. Hence, homoousios does not refer to the hypostasis, but to the fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have a common essence [ousia]. In this way, the issues were clarified and the conservative Church Fathers agreed to the term homoousios, because they accepted the distinction between essence and hypostasis.

Apparently, the Fathers used all these arguments to win a significant victory over the Arians. But later another group of Arians cropped up who had marked off their line of thought from the rest of the Arians. Their leaders were Aetios and Eunomios, who used what appear to have been Aristotelian arguments against the teaching of the Church. Although Basil the Great has written against Eunomios and Gregory the Theologian has also attacked Eunomios in his writings, the best work against Eunomios was written by Gregory of Nyssa.

Eunomios marked out his position from the positions of Arius on certain crucial points. In contrast with the teaching of Arius, Eunomios identified God’s uncreated essence with His uncreated energy and separated God’s created energies from His uncreated essence. While Arius made a distinction between the uncreated essence and the uncreated energy, Eunomios made the uncreated essence identical to the uncreated energy, but distinct from the many created energies.

Eunomios maintained that each energy must be in proportion to its effect. In other words, although God is all-powerful, He does not use all of His power. Instead, God creates energies that are inferior to His power and in proportion to their effects. The energy that brought the Word into existence is the highest of all existing created energies. In this way, all created beings can be arranged in a relative order descending towards qualitatively inferior energies. In any event, according to Eunomios, the Word and the Holy Spirit are not included among the forms [eidei], although all created beings are forms, and each form has its own energy.

Gregory of Nyssa accused Eunomios of having a ‘holy pentity’ [with five entities] instead of the Holy Trinity, because Eunomios inserted two created energies – one before the Word and another before the Holy Spirit. But in this way, the real father of the Word is not the First Essence, but a created energy. Likewise, the Holy Spirit does not come directly from the Son, but is the work of the Son’s created energy. Hence, first we have God and then the Father energy. Next there is the Word and then the Son energy. After all of this, we come to the Holy Spirit and finally all the other energies of the forms. In other words, Eunomios took relevant passages from the Fathers and corrupted them. While the Fathers said that God’s essential energy is “divided indivisibly among many,” Eunomios said that God’s one essence has many created energies.

In terms of Aristotelian philosophy, Eunomios’s identification of God’s uncreated essence with His uncreated energy means that God has virtually no direct connection with the world. Instead, God’s relationship with the world unfolds with the help of His created energies. Now this establishes a new situation. For his pan, Eunomios says that Arius and the Arians are mistaken when they assert that God’s essence is unknown. Eunomios maintains that God’s essence is known and moreover comprehensible.

Although Eunomios himself maintained that the Word knows God’s essence, the Fathers added that Eunomios said that the Word comprehended the essence. In fact, the Fathers added that Eunomios claimed that the Word is not alone in being able to comprehend God’s essence, but even human beings could comprehend it. Eunomios said this, because he taught that God Himself revealed the names for His essence. The primary name for His essence is unbegotten, but he claims that ‘unoriginate’ and ‘unending’ are also names for God’s essence and that God Himself has revealed all these names to man.

After this exchange, Gregory of Nyssa takes over and says to Eunomios, “Where did you find the word ‘unbegotten,’ since this name cannot be found anywhere in the Bible?” But according to Eunomios, the word ‘Father’ is a name for God’s energy, not for God’s essence. Nevertheless, the Fathers accused Eunomios of also identifying the word ‘Father’ with God’s essence, even though Eunomios himself claims that he identifies it with God’s energy. Precisely what happened remains unknown.

In any event, according to Eunomios, God has many energies. God did not fashion the Word by essence through His uncreated energy, because Eunomios does not allow for the Father to be related to the Son by essence. So what does Eunomios do? He inserts a created energy in between God’s uncreated essence and the Word’s nature. So God uses a created energy, which follows directly after God the Father’s uncreated essence, in order to fashion the Word. Next, Eunomios also inserts another created energy that fashions the Holy Spirit. These energies are simple energies. One energy is for the Word and another energy is for the Holy Spirit. According to Eunomios, this structure is responsible for the existence of one Word and one Holy Spirit.

Now with respect to created beings, why did Eunomios teach that the Holy Spirit has many energies? He taught this because of the many forms whose existence would be inexplicable if it were not for a created energy behind each form. Just as one energy brought the Word into existence, and in like manner one Holy Spirit exists because one energy brought Him into existence, it follows that this Holy Spirit has many energies for the world, because if the Holy Spirit only had one energy for the world, then there would be only one form in the world.

Here we can see what happened when philosophy took over the Patristic teaching about the Holy Spirit’s one simple energy that “is divided indivisibly among many.” Patristic teaching is distorted by philosophy and becomes pathetic.

It is naturally impossible to study Eunomios unless you are very familiar with Gregory of Nyssa, because in the dispute between Eunomios and Basil the Great, certain aspects of the dispute were not resolved. Only in Basil’s second work were these points resolved, but this work was lost. Fortunately, the core of this work can be found in St. Gregory of Nyssa’s response to Eunomios.

The End
And to God
Be Glory

On Humility

by St. Abba Esaias of Sketis
_

WHAT IS HUMILITY? HUMILITY IS CONSIDERING oneself to be sinful1 and not doing any good before God. The work of humility consists of being silent, not measuring oneself in anything, not loving strife, submission, looking downward, holding death before one’s eyes, guarding oneself from falsehood, not holding vain conversations, not contradicting one’s superior(s), not wishing to impose one’s opinion, enduring insult, hating repose, subjecting oneself to ascetic discipline, being vigilant to cut off one’s own will, and not irritating anyone.

Therefore, brother, take care to accomplish these <precepts> with precision, in order that your soul may not become a dwelling place of every passion, and be vigilant in each one of these, so that you do not end your life fruitlessly, to the ages. Amen.

1. Cf. John Damascene. Sacred Parallels PG 96:370.

Joy of Soul by Serving God

On the Joy that Comes to the Soul that Desires to Serve God

by Saint Abba Isaiah of Sketis

__

FIRST, I GREET YOU IN GODLY FEAR, and entreat you to be perfect in a manner that is pleasing to him, in order that your ascetic discipline may not be futile, but, rather, that it may be joyfully received from you by God.

A trader who makes a profit is joyful. Anyone who learns a skill well is joyful; he does not count the toil endured in the learning. A married man who has a wife that comforts and cares well for him is filled with joy in his heart upon seeing her. A soldier, who ignores death in fighting for his king until victory, is promoted. Behold, these are the ways of this lost world, and such people are joyful when they succeed in their proper task.

How much joy do you suppose fills the soul when a person begins to serve God, and when that person completes the task? Upon his death, he will present his ascetic discipline, and the angels will rejoice with him when they see him rid of the powers of darkness. When the soul leaves the body, the angels journey with it. At that moment, all the forces of darkness come out to meet the soul, wanting to possess it and examining whether it has anything that belongs to them. Then it is not the angels who war against these forces, but the good works that have been achieved which fortify and protect the soul from them, so that it may not be touched by them. If the good works are victorious, then the angels lead the soul, chanting in procession, until it meets God in gladness, and at that time it forgets every worldly labor and ascetic toil. Let us, therefore, do our utmost to work well during this brief lifetime, preserving our ascetic labor from every evil, in order that we may be saved from the hands of the evil spirits of this world, for they are wicked and lack compassion. Blessed is the person in whom nothing is found that belongs to them. His joy, gladness, rest, and crown will be exceedingly great, whereas all the affairs of this world subject to change, whether it is a matter of trade, or marriage, or the others that I mentioned.

Dear brother, let us do our utmost in tears before God, so that his goodness may be merciful to us and grant us strength that we may, in turn, wrestle against the evil spirits that come to meet us in regard to the deeds we have performed. Let us take care, therefore, with all sincerity of heart, and acquire within ourselves a desire for God that will save us from the hands of the evil ones when they come to meet us there. Let us learn to love the poor, because this may save us from avarice when it approaches us. Let us strive to make peace with all people, because this will save us when it approaches us. Let us acquire long-suffering in all things, for this will protect us against negligence when it approaches us. Let us love all people as our brothers, neither allowing any hatred against anyone to enter our heart, nor returning evil for evil, for this will protect us from envy when it approaches us. Let us strive for humility in everything, enduring the words of our neighbor when he either hurts or rebukes us, and this will protect us from pride when it approaches us. Let us seek to honor our neighbor, never causing any harm by blaming, and this will protect us from slander when it approaches us. Let us overlook the needs and honors of this world that we may be saved from jealousy when it approaches us. Let us train our mind in godly study, righteousness, and prayer, that these may protect us from falsehood when it approaches us. Let us purify our heart and body from sinful desire that we may be saved from impurity when it approaches us.

All these things occupy the soul when it leaves the body, and the virtues assist the soul, if the latter has acquired them. Which wise person would not give his life to be delivered from all this? Therefore, let us do our utmost. The power of our Lord Jesus Christ is great enough to assist us in our humility, for he knows that humanity is wretched, and has given us the opportunity to repent while still alive, until our last breath. So let your thought be concentrated on God, that he may protect you. Pay no attention to the needs of the world, falsely placing any hope in it, in order that you may be saved, for you will leave behind the things of this world, and move to the next. Whatever you do for the sake of God, this is what you will find as a sure hope at the time of need.

Despise worldly words, in order that your heart may see God. Love continual prayer, in order that your heart may be illumined. Shun laziness, and the fear of God will dwell in you. Distribute now with a generous disposition to someone who has a need, so that you may not be put to shame among the saints and their goods. Hate the desire of food, that Amalek may not hinder you. Do not hurry through your duties, lest the beasts devour you. Do not love wine to the point of drunkenness, lest you become deprived of the gladness of God. Love the faithful, that they may have mercy on you. Desire the saints, that their zeal may consume you.8 Remember the kingdom of heaven, in order that your desire for it may very gradually attract you. Think of Gehenna, so that you may despise its works. When you wake up each morning, remember that you will give account to God for your every deed. In this way, you will not sin against him, and fear of him will dwell in you. Prepare yourself to encounter him, and you will do his will. Question yourself on a daily basis here about what you lack, and you will not toil at the time of need when you die. Let your brothers see your deeds, and your zeal will consume them too.9 Examine yourself daily as to which passion you have conquered, and do not put your trust in yourself, for mercy and strength belong to God. Do not consider yourself to be faithful, even until your last breath. Do not think highly of yourself, or that you are good, for you can never trust your enemies. Do not be confident while you are still living, until you pass beyond all the powers of darkness.

Brother, be vigilant against the demon that brings you sadness, for its spoils are many, until it renders you powerless. On the other hand, godly sadness is joy and consists of seeing yourself standing in the will of God. The demon that tempts you, saying, ‘Where can you flee? You have no repentance’, belongs to the enemy who is trying to make you lose self-control, whereas godly sadness does not attack you, but says, ‘Do not be afraid; try again’, for it knows that humanity is weak, and strengthens us. Let your heart be wise in its thoughts, and you will not be burdened by them, for the one who fears them is weakened by their weight. One who fears their action clearly proves themselves to be unfaithful to God. Not measuring oneself, and allowing oneself to remain unknown, reveals that a person is not spending time with the passions or doing their will, but, rather, is doing the will of God. One who wants to have a word to say on many subjects shows that there is no fear of God in him, for the fear of God is the soul’s protection and assistance, watching over the inner, governing intellect, in order to destroy all its enemies. The person who seeks godly honor takes the time to drive impurity away from himself. Knowledgeable care is what cuts away the passions, for it is written, ‘Care will come upon a wise’. One who has fallen ill is also the one who knows health. One who is crowned receives this honor because he has overcome the king’s enemies.

There are passions and there are virtues, and if we are discouraged, it is obvious that we are traitors. A courageous heart is, after God, the soul’s helper, just as boredom assists evil. The strength of those who wish to acquire the virtues is that, if they fall, they will not be discouraged, but will try again. The instrument of the virtues is ascetic discipline in knowledge. The fruits of the passions result from negligence. Not judging one’s neighbor is a protection for those who struggle in knowledge, but blaming one’s neighbor destroys this protection in ignorance. Taking care of one’s tongue is the sign of a person who practices the virtues. Not controlling one’s tongue shows that a person has no inner virtue. Charity in knowledge gives birth to foresight, and leads to love, but lack of charity shows that a person has no inner virtue. Goodness gives rise to purity. Distraction gives rise to passions, and hardheartedness gives rise to anger. Discipline of the soul is hatred of distraction, and discipline of the body is poverty. The fall of the soul is loving distraction, and its rise is silence in knowledge. Excessive sleep disturbs the passions within the body, and vigil in measure is the heart’s salvation. Too much sleep thickens the heart, but vigil in measure refines it. It is better to sleep in silence and knowledge, than to keep vigil with idle talk. Compunction calmly expels all evil. Not offending your neighbor’s conscience gives rise to humility. Human glory very gradually gives rise to pride. Loving to boast expels knowledge. Self-control in food humiliates the passions. Desire of food stimulates them without any trouble. Adorning the body is the destruction of the soul, but caring for it with godly fear is good. Being careful about God’s judgment gives rise to fear in the soul. Trampling on one’s conscience shakes off the virtues from the heart. Love for God expels negligence, and fearlessness arouses it. Guarding one’s mouth awakens the intellect to God, if it is silent in knowledge, but loquacity begets boredom and madness. Dismissing your will before your neighbor signifies that the intellect is looking to the virtues, but holding onto your will before your neighbor signifies ignorance. Study, with godly fear, protects the soul from passions, but talking in a worldly manner darkens it from virtues. Love of matter troubles the intellect and the soul.

A person who performs his ascetic labor but does not protect <himself> is like a house without doors or windows, into which any reptile that wants can enter. Human honor eats away the heart that is convinced by it, like rust, which eats away at iron. Just as a knife caught up in a vine destroys the fruit, so also vainglory destroys a monk’s labor if he is convinced by it. The first of the virtues is humility, and the first of the passions is gluttony. The end of the virtues is love, and the end of the passions is self-justification. Just as a worm eats away at wood and destroys it, evil in the heart darkens the soul. Surrendering one’s soul before God gives rise to calm endurance of insolence, and its tears are protected from everything human. Not blaming oneself also brings the inability to endure anger. Conversing with secular people disturbs the heart and shames it in prayer to God, so that it has no confidence. Loving the needs of the world darkens the soul; totally ignoring them brings knowledge. Loving ascetic labor is a way of hating the passions; laziness brings them back without any trouble. Do not bind yourself to a particular way of life, and your thoughts will be at peace within you. Do not trust your own strength, and God’s assistance will come to you. Do not show hatred against anyone because your prayer will not be accepted. Be at peace with all, so that you may be confident in prayer. Guard your eyes, and your heart will see no evil. One who looks at another with sensual pleasure is committing adultery. Do not wish to hear about any harm to someone who has hurt you, lest you return the evil in your heart. Guard your ears, so that you do not bring spiritual warfare upon yourself. Work on your manual labor, so that a poor person may find bread, for idleness is death and destruction for the soul. Continual prayer destroys captivity, but I ignoring it, even a little, is the mother of forgetfulness. One who keeps death nearby in his expectation does not sin much, but one who expects to live a long time will be entangled in many sins. When a person is prepared to give an account to God for all his deeds, God himself will take care to purify his every way from sin, but the person who pays no attention and says, ‘It will be some time before I die’, dwells in evil. Each day, before you do anything, remember and always consider where you are and where you must go when you die, and you will not neglect your soul for even a day. Think of the honor received by all the saints, and their zeal will attract you very gradually. Ponder also on the punishments received by sinners, and you will always be guarded from evil. Take counsel at all times with your elders, and you will live all your life in peace.

Observe yourself, in order to see if the thought pricks you that your brother is upset with you; do not overlook this thought, but show penitence toward him, with a sad voice, until you persuade him. Watch that you are not hardhearted against you brother, for we are all forced by hatred. If you are living with other brothers, do not command them to do anything, but labor with them so that you do not lose your reward. If the demons trouble you about food, clothing, or great poverty, suggesting that you utter rebukes, in no way respond to them, but surrender yourself to God with all your heart, and he will grant you rest. Take care not to neglect performing your duties, for these bring illumination to the soul. If you have done good things, do not take pride in them, and if you have done many evil things, let not your heart be immensely saddened, but stand firm in your heart so that you are no longer persuaded to do such evil, and if you are wise you will be protected from their desire and pride. If you are bothered by fornication, continually afflict your body with humility before God, do not allow your heart to be convinced that your sins have been forgiven, and you will find rest. If jealousy afflicts you, remember that we are all members of Christ, and that our neighbor’s honor and reproach belong to all, and you will find rest. If gluttony or the desire for food is your spiritual warfare, remember its stench, and you will find rest. If slander against your brother afflicts you, remember how sorry he will be if he hears such things, and you will immediately run to dissuade him, and find rest. If pride dominates you, remember that it will destroy all your ascetic labor and that there is no repentance for those who yield to it, and you will find rest. If contempt against your neighbor attacks your heart, remember that it is for this reason that God puts you in the hands of your enemy, and you will find rest. If bodily beauty attracts your heart, remember its stench, and you will find rest. If the enjoyment of women is sensually most pleasing to you, remember where those women who have already died have gone, and you will find rest.

All things are abolished by discernment, when it gathers and considers them, but it is impossible for discernment to come to you, unless you cultivate its ground, beginning with silence. Silence gives birth to ascetic discipline. Ascetic discipline gives birth to weeping. Weeping gives rise to fear of God. Godly fear begets humility. Humility begets foresight. Foresight begets love. Love renders the soul diseased free and dispassionate. Then, and only after all this, a person knows that he is far from God. So one who wants to receive all these honorable virtues must not care about what all the other people think but must be prepared for death. Whenever he prays, he must understand what it is that separates him from God, so that he may abolish it and hate all contact with it, and the goodness of God will grant him these virtues quickly. Know this also, that anyone who eats and drinks indifferently, and is attached to something worldly, will not reach or ever acquire these virtues, but is deceiving himself.

I entreat everyone who wants to offer repentance to God, therefore, to refrain from too much wine, for this renews all the passions (cf. St. Barsanuphios, Letter 508) and expels the fear of God from the soul. Nevertheless, ask God, with all your strength, to send you his fear, in order that, through your strong desire for him, he may destroy all the passions that array against your wretched soul, wanting to separate it from him in order to claim it. This is why the enemy does its utmost to struggle against us.

Therefore, brother, as long as you are in the body, do not pay attention to leisure, and, if you see a time of rest from the passions, do not trust yourself, for they shrewdly withdraw for a while, so that a person might relax his heart, thinking that he has found rest, and t then suddenly they leap inside the wretched soul and seize it like a bird, and, if they are stronger than it in regard to any sin, they humiliate it mercilessly, rendering the struggle still more difficult than that for which he had earlier prayed for forgiveness.

Let us, therefore, stand in godly fear, and let us protect the practice <of our virtues>, preserving all the virtues that prevent the evil of the enemy, for the labor and toil of this brief life not only protect us from evil, but even prepare crowns for the soul before death.

Our teacher, our holy Lord Jesus, saw their great mercilessness and took pity on the human race, commanding with a strict heart, ‘Keep awake at all times, for you do not know at what hour the thief is coming’, ‘lest he come suddenly and find you asleep’. In teaching his disciples, he commanded them, ‘Be on guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation, and drunkenness, and the worries of this life, and that hour catches you unexpectedly’; and knowing that the evil demons outnumber us, and showing <them> that power belongs to him, so that they need not fear, he said, ‘See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves’, but he commanded them not to take anything for the journey, for so long as they had nothing that the wolves wanted, they could not be devoured by them. When they returned healthy, having kept this command, he congratulated them, giving thanks to God the Father on their account, and, encouraging their heart, he said, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lighting. See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes, and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will hurt you’. So his commission entailed fear and the keeping of a command, and when this command was fulfilled by them, he gave them authority and power. These words do not only belong to those disciples, but to all who fulfill the commandments, for, having loved these entirely, he said, ‘Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven’. When they kept these words as well, he said to them, ‘I leave you with my peace; my peace I give to you’; and, convincing them, he said, ‘Those who love me will keep my commandments, and I and my Father will come to them, and make our home with them’; and, rendering them fearless of the world, he said to them, ‘In the world you face persecution, but take courage; I have conquered the world’; and, encouraging them not to lose heart in face of persecutions, he spoke to them, granting joy in their hearts, ‘you are those who have stood by me in my trials, and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table’. He did not say these things to all, but to those who stood by him in trials. Who, then, are they that stood by Jesus in his trials, if not those who stood up to whatever is contrary to nature, until it was cut off? He told them these things as he was on his way to the cross. The one, therefore, who wishes to eat and drink at his table, will journey with him to the cross, for the cross of Jesus is abstinence from every passion, until it is cut off. The beloved disciple cut them away and dared to say, ‘I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me’. Therefore, Christ lives in those who have abolished the passions. Exhorting his children, the apostle said, ‘Those who belong to Jesus Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires’. Further, writing to his child Timothy, he said, ‘If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us’.

Who, then, are they who deny him but those who carry out their fleshly desires, and insult their holy Baptism? Through His Name we received remission of sins,  and on account of jealousy, the enemy again overcame us through sin. Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ saw how great the enemy’s original evil was, and, additionally, offered us repentance, to our last breath, for were it not for repentance, no one would be saved. Knowing that we sin, even after Baptism, the apostle said, ‘Thieves must give up stealing’.

As long, then, as we have the seal of holy Baptism, let us strive to abandon our sins, that we may find mercy on that day, for he is at hand, and is coming, seated on the throne of his glory, and all the tribes of the earth will be gathered before him, and each one of us will be revealed from the very torch that is in our hand. Thus, whoever does not have oil, his torch will be extinguished and thrown into the darkness. Whosoever’s torch is bright, will accompany him into the ruling power [vasileia]. Let us, therefore, dear brothers, strive to fill our vessels with oil while we are still in this life, that our torch may shine and we may enter his ruling power [vasileia]. Now the vessel is repentance, and the oil inside it is the practice of all virtues. The bright torch is the holy soul. So, if the soul shines brightly through its good deeds, this is how it will enter the kingdom with him, and if the soul is darkened by its own evil, it will be sent to the darkness.

Therefore, struggle, brothers, because our time is at hand, and blessed is he who is concerned about this, for the fruit is ripe, and it is the time of harvest. Blessed is he who has saved his fruit, for the angels will gather it in the eternal storehouse. Woe to those who are the weeds, for they will inherit the fire. The inheritance of this world is gold, silver, houses, and clothing, and it is not simply that these things prepare us for sin, but we leave them behind when we die. However, God’s inheritance is boundless, and ‘no eye has seen, nor  ear heard, nor human heart conceived’ it. He has granted it to those who obey him in this brief life, and it is received through bread, Water and clothing given to those in need, and through loving kindness’ purity of body, not rendering evil to one’s neighbor, a guileless heart’ and obeying the rest of his commandments. Those who keep these have rest in this age, and people will respect them. When they die they will receive eternal joy, but the faces of those who carry all; their sinful desires and do not repent—being distracted by sensual pleasure, enacting their evil through deceit, being vain m their talk, violent in their battles, fearless of God’s judgment, unmerciful to the poor, and committing all the other sins—will be filled with shame in this age, and people will despise them. When they leave this world, reproach and shame will lead them to Gehenna.

God is powerful and makes us worthy to progress in his works, keeping us from every evil deed, in order that we may be saved in the time of trial which will come upon the whole world, for our Lord Jesus will not tarry, so but will come, bearing the reward, and he will send the impious to the eternal fire. To his own he will grant a reward, and these will enter with him and find rest in his kingdom, to the ages of ages.

Amen.

______

how do the Fathers theologize ?

Chapter 63. – Fr. John Romanides: Patristic Theology – The University Lectures

… how do the Fathers theologize in the Orthodox tradition? First of all, the Fathers invoke HolyScripture in order to support the teaching of the Church. But when a heresy appears, they likewise invoke the experience of those who have reached theosis and are still alive. When the Arian heresy appeared, the Fathers invoked the experience of those who had reached theosis and were alive during the age of the Arian conflict. So there are two ways that a theologian can build his argument. Nevertheless in order for a statement to be Orthodox, the two kinds of reasoning must be reconcilable. The arguments should be identical or complementary. They must not contradict each other. While reasons are formed and conclusions are drawn mainly from Holy Scripture, the argumentation is always sealed and confirmed as sound on the basis of the documented experience of the Church Fathers, including both the saints who have fallen asleep and those saints who are alive at the time of the heresy’s appearance.

But this is precisely what takes place in every science. If we look at Chinese manuscripts on astronomy, for example, we will read about an immense explosion that occurred in the universe on July 4th, 1054, and that the Chinese astronomers were able to record. For two weeks, they could see the light from this explosion. In other words, we possess a Chinese manuscript that refers to this incident. Now when we read this manuscript today, we might call it a bunch of nonsense, but contemporary astronomers have verified that this explosion or supernova really did happen at that time and resulted in a cloud that they have since called ‘the Crab Nebula.’ In other words, we have before us recorded written evidence for a phenomenon that is confirmed by the experience of contemporary astronomers.

In like manner, the Bible documents, the experience of the prophets and the Apostles. But how can we verify their experience of theosis today? How can we confirm that the Bible’s descriptions of God and Christ are reliable? From a Patristic point of view, the saints living in every age who reached the stage of seeing Christ in glory provide us with this verification and confirmation through their personal experience. They can assure their contemporaries that what is mentioned in the Bible is true. So we not only possess the personal experience of the Church Fathers, which is the same as the experience of the prophets and the Apostles, but we also have the experience of the saints living in every age. And we can see that this tradition of the experience of theosis was vigorous and nourishing until the end of the Turkish yoke and still looms large in the consciousness of Orthodox Christians.184 So some Church Fathers in their struggle against the heretics would also invoke their own experience of theosis. For example, St. Gregory the Theologian invoked his personal experience in his struggle against the Eunomians.

But the question is whether or not we understand the relationship between the written text of the Bible and the experience of theosis that exists today.

Naturally, whether or not a contemporary experience is genuine is another matter, but we will examine that topic separately. For the time being, we can see the very same issue of documentation and experience also at work in astronomy. On the one hand, there are texts about astronomy. On the other hand, there is empirical or observational astronomy. The relationship between what is documented in astronomical texts and what is observed astronomically through a modern telescope forms a perfect analogy to the relationship between the prophets’ and Apostles’ experience of glorification documented in the Bible, as well as the experience of theosis documented in Patristic literature and the contemporary experience of saints who are alive today.

If we ignore the contemporary experience of saints who are alive today, it is like ignoring telescopic astronomy of the observatory and being satisfied merely with what is documented in books on astronomy. If for some reason contemporary astronomers one day would be content to merely read the descriptions in astronomy books, and if they were not able to confirm by observation through a telescope what these books mention, would we consider this astronomy to be orthodox or heretical? We would assuredly consider such astronomy to be heretical or not genuine. After all, how could it possibly be genuine, since it would not be able to be confirmed empirically by observation? Besides, a description can never fully do justice to a lived experience and living reality.

We encounter this same relationship between written descriptions and empirical verification in all the exact sciences. We also encounter it in theology. Lived experience tests the absence or presence of authenticity in the documented descriptions of written or oral tradition.

Question from a student: Is the testimony of Holy Scripture not sufficient? Why is the experience of ‘theosis’ necessary for the verification of Biblical truth?

Answer: It is necessary because of the rise of modern Greek theology that has caused modern Orthodox Christians in Greece to sit around and busy themselves with the Bible, irrespective of the prerequisites for such. Moreover, as far as they are concerned, the Bible is a book separate from the experience of the prophets and the Apostles. Even though the Bible itself speaks about the prophets’ and the Apostles’ experience of theosis, modern Greek theology is not aware of this and could care less for what Holy Scripture has to say on this subject.

If you want proof, check out some modern theological writings. You will not find a single passage where they talk about the theosis and glorification of the Apostles and the prophets. In other words, this Patristic interpretation of the Old and New Testament has disappeared from Biblical hermeneutics in contemporary Greece.185 Why? Because the Russians, Protestants, and Roman Catholics have strongly biased our own Biblical interpreters against taking into consideration the Patristic method of biblical interpretation. We have the Old Testament, we have the New Testament, we have the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, and we have the Patristic tradition. Nevertheless, in Greece today there are people who claim that they are conservative, but who in fact accept tradition out of a blind devotion to tradition. In other words, their acceptance really does not go beyond external forms.

If someone does not know what the foundation of the prophetic, apostolic, and Patristic experience is – which is the foundation of doctrine – how will he be able to defend Orthodox doctrine without referring to the experiences of the Fathers? Will he be able to do so only on the basis of what the Bible mentions? If he only refers to the Bible, and does not refer to Patristic experiences, he will not be able to explain how the Fathers formulated doctrine. And so he will be forced to agree with the heterodox that maintain that when the Fathers formulated doctrine they were in fact philosophizing on the basis of what is mentioned in Holy Scripture. But the truth of the matter is that the Fathers formed dogmas on the basis of their experience of theosis, and not after philosophical reflection on what is mentioned in the Bible.

Thus, when modern Greek theology deviated from the hesychastic tradition – which was preserved until the end of the Turkish yoke – an absurd tradition emerged in which modern Greek theology was forced unwittingly to follow the path of those Church Fathers who did philosophize (such as Augustine and his followers). That is, modern Greek theology was forced to portray the Fathers as philosophers in the spirit of Greek antiquity who formulated doctrine by means of philosophical reflection. But this is not a description of Patristic tradition. It is an outright caricature.

So from a purely scientific perspective, it is imperative for us Orthodox Christians to spell out how Orthodox theology has progressed through history on the basis of Patristic methodology so that we will be able to understand our present situation. If we do not do this, Orthodoxy won’t be able to stand its ground, because, from a scientific point of view, Orthodoxy cut off from the Patristic method is sheer nonsense. Anyone who is well acquainted with modern philosophical methodology, the scientific method, the history of philosophy, and the history of theology (à la the heterodox) will be able to see that this kind of Orthodoxy can stand its ground only with the backing of the armed forces. No serious-minded person will be convinced of the truth and validity of Orthodox doctrine in this way.

And for starters, I certainly would not be convinced. If Orthodoxy were in fact what is described in modern Greek textbooks, I would be an atheist today. When Orthodox teaching is cut off from its roots, it becomes utterly ridiculous. And this includes the teachings about the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and everything else. For instance, what does the phrase “one essence and three hypostases” mean, if this formulation is cut off from the experience of theosis, the Transfiguration, and Pentecost? Logically speaking, it is absolutely meaningless. And in that case, what would be the aim of theology? Perhaps the purpose of having a sacred dogma is for me to be able to put it on my dresser and worship it? Or maybe I need to have a dogma, so that I will be able to make moralistic speeches?

The crux of the matter from the Patristic point of view is that every human being is sick.

There is not a single human being who functions normally, apart from the saints. Today, everyone has his own criteria for what functioning normally means. But who is really normal? Who is insane and who is not? There are some people who are so very abnormal that they are locked up in mental institutions because they are either dangerous to themselves or to society. But there are also many others who are equally dangerous, but who are not locked up in mental institutions. So how can we determine who is normal and who is abnormal?

Then, Patristic theology comes along and says that no one is normal. And it explains how God gave man noetic energy which is a physiological component of human nature, but which unfortunately does not function at all in the average human being, or merely functions in an underdeveloped way. In order to make this noetic energy function again, the human personality must first be healed.

Now the need for healing and the process of healing the human personality are the parameters that form the core of Orthodox tradition. But Orthodox Christians are not he only ones whose noetic energy needs to be healed. Noetic energy is not something Orthodox. This need for healing is not a trait of Orthodox Christians alone, but of all humanity. Everyone has a nous and that nous must be healed. So when we talk about Orthodox spirituality in the Patristic sense of the term, it means that we are talking about the healing of everyone’s nous. In other words, Orthodox spirituality is a curative course of treatment that is aimed at all people and designed to include all people. It is called Orthodox because you cannot be healed if you have not embraced Orthodox doctrine and acquired an Orthodox dogmatic conscience. In this case, dogma is not aimed at making man submissive and locking him up within the confines of a religious system. No, it is aimed at contributing to his cure. On its own, dogma has no other purpose besides leading man to this cure.

Now what is wrong with modern [Greek] theology ?

Although the Fathers recognize that everyone has a nous186 and that it needs to be healed, modern Greek theology and modern Orthodoxy do not recognize this need. If the curative treatment of the nous is not placed once more at the base of modern Orthodoxy and if its Patristic foundation is not restored, then we will suffer the consequences – dogma cut off from its foundation will become untenable (that is, impossible to defend in an argument) and incomprehensible; Orthodoxy will stray from its main objective and work, and consequently not be able to stand on its own.

In this case, Orthodoxy will be like a skyscraper that does not rest on a foundation, but on a cloud. If the common man sees such an image, what will he say? He will say, “That is ridiculous”. And if there are some people who believe that it is possible for a skyscraper to be supported by a cloud, won’t they be ridiculous as well? Can they possibly be anything else? In like manner, if you cutoff dogma from its foundation, dogma ends up being incomprehensible in terms of its origin.

So what do the modern Greek theologians do next? They remove the experience of theosis as the foundation for doctrine and put the Bible in its place. Of course, the prophets,’ and the Apostles’ experiences of theosis are described within the pages of the Bible. It records how this person was glorified and how that person was glorified. Yes, it is true that Holy Scripture mentions that all the prophets saw the glory of God, but when there is no way to verify this experience, everyone begins to use his imagination in order to interpret what is mentioned in the Bible.

For example, someone reads that Christ ascended into heaven in a cloud. On the one hand, if this person can think for himself, if this person has nothing to do with the experience of theosis, and if he has not even heard about it, he will start laughing when he reads such an account. He will say, “How is it possible for a man to sit on a cloud?” On the other hand, if this person is a superstitious Orthodox Christian, he will say, “Oh look, our sweet little Jesus did this miracle, too! He sat on a cloud and ascended into heaven.” And he will believe it. Someone else might even imagine that at the Ascension Christ began to be lifted up on a cloud as though it were an elevator.

But according to the Fathers, this ‘cloud’ is not a created cloud. It is not a mass of water droplets. This ‘cloud’ is the uncreated glory of God. In the Bible, the glory of God is called ‘a cloud,’ ‘light,’ and ‘fire.’ When the Bible mentions how ‘the pillar of fire’ and the ‘pillar of cloud’ went before the children of Israel in the desert, the Bible is referring to the same phenomenon – the glory of God.187 Hence, Christ did not ascend in or on a cloud of water droplets, nor did He go up to heaven as though He were riding an elevator. Rather, He ascended in glory as the dismissal hymn for the feast of Transfiguration clearly states. In other words, Christ simply disappeared in the midst of uncreated glory before the Apostles’ eyes.

When dogmas are cut off from their source, they become untenable. This is why the Church in Greece is now188 going through a crisis.189 After the war of 1940, Greek children went to catechetical schoolsl90 and were instructed in pietism. They learned a new Protestant-style interpretation of the Bible, a new interpretation of doctrine, a new kind of Orthodoxy, and so forth. And their minds were filled with moralizations and Puritanism. And of course, they learned these things through cute little phrases. And who knows how many of you have gone to such catechetical schools that have so many slogans and ditties, where they teach Orthodoxy using ditties like “O our Christ, O our Christ”.

But what happened next? What ever became of those who went to such catechetical schools? Their faith was shaken, because it was not well grounded in anything, and so they were left with Puritanism. This is the reason why we have moralistic politicians in Greece who now make speeches on improving morality. Instead of using the law as a criterion for legal order, these politicians use ethical criteria in order to assess the behavior of citizens (whether they are good or bad). This is why democracy in Greece is in danger today. When the law is identified with morality, you cannot have democracy, because under such conditions you cannot tolerate bad people.

And now how will these people become Orthodox after their faith has been shaken? I assure you that, given the way ideas move about freely today, this kind of modern Greek Orthodoxy will be buried. Whether it will be buried by materialistic ideology (Marxism, existentialism, atheism, and so forth) or by a revival of Patristic tradition is another matter. In any event, what is certain is that it will be buried. It cannot possibly survive. Perhaps the Patristic tradition will be rekindled and it will bury this pseudo-orthodoxy. But if the Patristic tradition does not bury it, modern scientific thought will certainly do so, because a Biblical interpretation that fails to explore thoroughly the theological method of the Bible and to demonstrate its relationship with that method cannot possibly remain standing today.

The theological method of the Bible is based on the experience of glorification and theosis. How do we know this? Read the Old and New Testaments. You will see for yourselves how often it mentions that a prophet was glorified.

In other words, he saw the glory of God; he saw the Angel of glory; he saw God; and so forth. We can see the same emphasis in the New Testament as well. The Bible is a description of revelations of Christ before and after the Incarnation. The question is whether or not we correctly interpret the Bible. In other words, how do we know if a revelation of Christ or an experience of theosis that is described in Holy Scripture is genuine? How can we know or determine whether someone who says that he saw God is a true prophet or a false prophet? According to St. Paul, the true or genuine prophet has reached theosis, while the false prophet claims to have reached theosis without having reached it.

Someone who has reached theosis knows about the creation of the world, because in the state of theosis he can see that which is derived from the Father and that which is derived from non-being. In other words, he can see not only what comes from non-being and is dependent on the will of God, but also what is from God, which includes the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the essence, the natural energy of the essence, the dominion, the rule, the glory, the energy of God that “is multiplied without being multiplied among many,” and so forth. Whatever comes from the Father and has its existence from the Father, and not from non-being, is uncreated, while whatever comes from non-being is created.

What was written in the Bible about the creation of the world was written on the basis of this experience of theosis. Holy Scripture did not get its description from heaven, nor did its description appear out of the blue. The Muslims claim that the Koran comes from heaven and believe that the Koran is uncreated, but the Bible is not like that. It did not fall from the sky. It is also not an intellectual revelation cut off from the experience of theosis.

The Bible talks about the experiences of the prophets and the Apostles; it also talks aboutglorification; it also talks about the prayer of the Holy Spirit. So we can see Biblical tradition that was present before the appearance of the Bible and before the writing of the Mosaic Pentateuch. The Bible appeared at a specific moment in history, but the core of the Bible was present before its appearance as a written manuscript. Now what is this core? It is the patriarchs’ and the prophets’ communion with God. Biblical tradition does not revolve around the Bible as a book, but around the patriarchs’ and prophets’ experiences of theosis. So what does Holy Scripture do? It simply records in writing the description of these experiences, even though they really cannot be described, because they are literally indescribable and beyond human reason. Holy Scripture does not aim at describing God, because God is indescribable. Holy Scripture aims at guiding man to union with God. This is the reason why the Bible uses symbolic language when it talks about God. After all, the prophet is forced to use concepts, forms, and images taken from human experience in order to describe the uncreated, which remains indescribable.

NOTES:
184 This tradition continues through the saints of the Church who are alive today.
185 The year is 1983.
186 The Church services refer to the healing of the nous as a treatment that clearly applies to all people.
187 Cf. Numbers 14:14 – TRANS.
188 The year is 1983.
189 Unfortunately, this crisis continues in our times.

___

Love for Enemies

Love for Enemies as the Measure of our Likeness to Christ

__

For Saint Silouan, the fundamental criterion by which a person may measure his or her likeness to Christ is love for one’s enemies (cf. Matt. 5:43-45). As he says:

“Christ prayed for them that were crucifying him: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’ (Luke 23:34). Stephen the Martyr prayed for those who stoned him, that the Lord ‘lay not this sin to their charge’ (Acts 7:60). And we, if we wish to preserve grace, must pray for our enemies.”

Herein lies the mystery of the divine “mode of being,” God’s very way of life: humility. Humility on the ascetic plane, explains Father Sophrony, is manifested as regarding one’s self as the worst of all sinners, while on the theological plane, humility is revealed as love, which is given freely and completely (11). Saint Silouan, who was himself possessed of this divine love, humbly warns us to be watchful:

“If you do not feel pity for the sinner destined to suffer the pains of hellfire, it means that the grace of the Holy Spirit is not in you, but an evil spirit. While you are still alive, therefore, strive by repentance to free yourself from this spirit” (12).

The struggle for Christlike love for one’s enemies and humility, and against pride, is a very great one indeed; and that is why the saints, the true imitators of Christ and sharers in His love, are great indeed. Saint Silouan writes:

“I am a sorry wretch, as the Lord knows, but my pleasure is to humble my soul and love my neighbour, though he may have given me offence. At all times I beseech the Lord Who is merciful to grant that I may love my enemies; and by the grace of God I have experienced what the love of God is, and what it is to love my neighbour; and day and night I pray the Lord for love, and the Lord gives me tears to weep for the whole world. But if I find fault with any man, or look on him with an unkind eye, my tears will dry up, and my soul sink into despondency. Yet do I begin again to entreat forgiveness of the Lord, and the Lord in His mercy forgives me, a sinner.”

“Brethren,” Saint Silouan continues:

“Before the face of my God I write: Humble your hearts, and while yet on this earth you will see the mercy of the Lord, and know your Heavenly Creator, and your souls will never have their fill of love” (St. Silouan the Athonite, pp. 362-363).

So, we see that the love of Christ fills the very being of His saints.

-Prof. Christopher Veniamin