|
0 members (),
223
guests, and
51
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,460
Posts417,210
Members6,097
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 157
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 157 |
Orthodox Monk raises some interesting questions, both in the cited article and in his two follow-up pieces. What are the theological, ecclesial, communal, cultural, and personal presuppositions for the realization of the hesychastic experience of God?
Both my knowledge and interest in these matters is quite limited. I am not a monastic and therefore will never be able to practice, even if I were so inclined (which I'm not), to practice the kind of asceticism of which Orthodox Monk speaks. However, I am not persuaded that a specifically Orthodox context is necessary to the practice of hesychastic asceticism. Why would it be impossible for a traditional Carthusian or Carmelite community, for example, to embrace and live the kind of disciplined life of prayer described by Orthodox Monk?
Perhaps one might argue that the Western construal of grace (assuming that there is just one Western construal of grace) excludes hesychasm. It is certainly true that many Western theologians during the past centuries have advanced criticisms of the Palamite formulation of the uncreated energies of God, but so what? Does the practice of hesychasm essentially require the 14th century Byzantine distinction between the divine being and energies? Are we to suppose that the early desert Fathers knew of such a distinction?
I suppose one might argue that if a person believes that hesychasts who claim to have seen the uncreated Light of Tabor are mistaken, presumably because human beings in this life are incapable of seeing the uncreated Light of Tabor, then that person will not embrace a spiritual method designed to lead one to such an experience. Yet even here I am not convinced that such an individual could not embrace the Jesus Prayer and the ascetical disciplines attached to it. Who knows? God might even bless such this individual with an experience of himself that the individual was not expecting. After all, the experience of the uncreated Light is divine gift, not a mechanical product of a method.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
So far as I know, hesychia has never formally been condemned by the Roman Church, and as St. Gregory Palamas is commemorated on the Second Sunday of Lent, it would be awkward indeed if it had. However, at most we have some private opinions by some scholastic and neo-scholastic theologians from the fifteenth through the early 20th century, and these should be given no more weight than should be given to any other private theological opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
I quite like this idea myself. Seems quite logical, but do you have a source that I can point to in order to defend the attacks on my using the quote that are bound to follow? Paul VI made the reference in an address commemorating the 700th anniversary Second Council of Lyons back in 1974. Since then, a number of Vatican documents have referred to the second millennium councils in a similar manner. The Ravenna Statement, paras. 35-39, pretty much takes this as a given.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
We concede that a Roman Pontiff has never pronounced infallibly Beg to differ. See Honorius I for the most blatant example, but also Vigilius and Liberius for more ambiguous ones. Attempts to whitewash Honorius, at the very least, reek of special pleading.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,750 Likes: 28
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,750 Likes: 28 |
Admin's Note: I received the following via e-mail with a request to post.Some Comments on this Thread from Orthodox MonkWe would like to thank the Byzantine Catholic Forum for accepting to post our response to the comments in this thread, a response that we are sending by email. In reading over the posts on this thread, we were struck by a number of issues to which we would like to respond. Let us take them one-by-one. A number of posters have taken the position that as Eastern Rite Catholics they are bound only by the ecumenical councils, the first seven, that are accepted by the Orthodox. Our understanding of this matter is that all Catholics, whether Roman or Eastern Rite, are bound by all the councils recognized by the Holy See as ecumenical. Here is what Lumen Gentium says. This is also called The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. It is a document of Vatican II: But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. … The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.
(Chapter III On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church And In Particular On The Episcopate. Emphasis added. All excerpts are taken from translations found on the official Vatican Web Site.) Now the assertion that the Roman Pontiff must approve a council for it to be considered ecumenical evidently arises out of a situation in the middle ages where a council met in Basel, we believe, and tried to force things on the Roman Church. The emphasis on acceptance by a Pope for a council to be considered ecumenical responds to this perceived danger. However, it also seems reasonable to infer from the above that what is also intended is the notion that if the Roman Pontiff says an council is ecumenical, it is. That is, the list of ecumenical councils promulgated by the Roman Church is binding on all Catholics, whether Roman or Eastern Rite. This is a matter of formal promulgation. It isn’t something said off the cuff in a meeting. The councils considered ecumenical by the Roman Pontiff can be found in any of the standard Roman Catholic collections of councils. Hence, we understand that all Catholics, whether Roman or Eastern Rite, are bound by all the councils recognized as such by the Vatican, including Vatican I and II. Now of course it would be necessary to confirm this with a Professor of Dogmatic Theology at a recognized Catholic university—say, Notre Dame. Let us look here at the issue of the authority of Rome. Because of our understanding of the binding nature of all ecumenical councils recognized as such by the Roman Pontiff, we understand that all Catholics, whether Roman or Eastern Rite, are bound by the contents of Lumen Gentium. This passage concerns the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and the magisterium: This Sacred Council [i.e. Vatican II], following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.
(Chapter III On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church And In Particular On The Episcopate. Emphasis added.) This second passage refers to the role within this framework of the individual Churches, including the Eastern Rite Churches: In virtue of this catholicity [of the Church] each individual part contributes through its special gifts to the good of the other parts and of the whole Church. Through the common sharing of gifts and through the common effort to attain fullness in unity, the whole and each of the parts receive increase. Not only, then, is the people of God made up of different peoples but in its inner structure also it is composed of various ranks. This diversity among its members arises either by reason of their duties, as is the case with those who exercise the sacred ministry for the good of their brethren, or by reason of their condition and state of life, as is the case with those many who enter the religious state and, tending toward holiness by a narrower path, stimulate their brethren by their example. Moreover, within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity (11*) and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it. Between all the parts of the Church there remains a bond of close communion whereby they share spiritual riches, apostolic workers and temporal resources. For the members of the people of God are called to share these goods in common, and of each of the Churches the words of the Apostle hold good: "According to the gift that each has received, administer it to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God".(123)
(Chapter II, On the People of God, Emphasis added.) Now, converts to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, we believe that this is saying that nothing in an Eastern Church that joins to Rome can legitimately be retained which stands in serious dogmatic contradiction to positions of the Church of Rome. Correct us if we are wrong. However, if it were otherwise, why would reunion with the Orthodox Churches be so difficult and time-consuming? If we go to the Decree On The Catholic Churches Of The Eastern Rite Orientalium Ecclesiarum, we find this: 2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)
3. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff. Hence, what the Eastern Rite Catholic Church retains when it comes into union with Rome is its rite, defined here as ‘liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage’. However, this passage from Lumen Gentium might be important: By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties.(37*)
(Chapter III On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church And In Particular On The Episcopate) Now the issue, clearly, is whether an element of ‘liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and [theological and] spiritual heritage’ that stood in contradiction to a dogmatic position taught ex cathedra or even otherwise by the Roman Pontiff could be retained. It is here that the Hesychast controversy enters in. For as we pointed out, Thomism was around the turn of the 20th Century declared an authoritative exposition of the Catholic faith. But the argument of Barlaam against St Gregory Palamas was a Thomist argument. And Pope John-Paul II was a neo-Thomist, so his remarks on Hesychasm have to be read in that light. A number of members of the Byzantine Catholic Forum submitted comments to the posts on our blog that we did not post. One person taxed us harshly in an ad hominem attack. When we asked for more reasoned arguments she sent us an article in broken English by someone who had published it on ‘Suite 101’, a paid Wikipedia. One of her arguments was that we did not grasp that there was a Hesychasm of the West because our definition of Hesychasm was too narrow. Given that another poster has claimed that the Jesus Prayer had no intrinsic connection to Hesychasm, implying that Hesychasm was some sort of mind-expanding yoga, we are simultaneously being attacked for being too narrow about Hesychasm and, it seems, too broad. So let us look at what Hesychasm is. As we pointed out on our blog, there is a historical evolution, broadly summarized by the Philokalia, that might be called the Hesychastic tradition of the Orthodox Church. When we look at the matter historically, we are necessarily grounded in historical specificity. That means that the claim that there is a Hesychasm of the West just won’t wash. There is a mysticism of the West; that we don’t deny, without passing judgement on its validity one way or another. However, Western mysticism is just not historical Hesychasm. To see this all you have to do is read St Diadochos of Photiki and St John of the Ladder. These authors speak of certain techniques. Certain strategies of what a Westerner might call contemplation. They also speak of grace. They have a certain anthropology that underlies their conception of the mystical journey. St. John of the Ladder speaks of restraining the immaterial mind within the material body. He also speaks of the Jesus Prayer. It seems that he intends that the mind be brought into the heart practising the Jesus Prayer and that there the Hesychast practise a mental ascesis of the rejection of tempting thoughts. Now without saying that the Westerner does not have contemplation, no one in the West has ever practised what these authors are discussing. Western contemplation is different, even when it is apophatic. The author that comes closest is St. John Cassian. And indeed certain aspects of the Hesychast tradition entered into the concrete Western traditions through St. John Cassian. But by the time we get to the Carmelites or the Carthusians, there is no longer any great similarity between Hesychasm and Western mystical traditions. This is the sort of historical fact that someone might study in graduate school. Now Fr. Kimel in his very balanced discussion raises the question as to whether a Carmelite or Carthusian might practise Hesychasm without the theological apparatus of St. Gregory Palamas. First of all, the distinction between essence and energy (or ‘action’ or ‘activity’) is already found in the Cappadocian Fathers in the 4th Century. It is not an innovation of St Gregory Palamas. Next, the Carmelites and the Carthusians have their own mystical traditions which are in harmony with the teachings of the Roman Pontiff. Why would they want to try out something new that might not be in harmony? What we were arguing in our blog post is that to the extent that there is a different underlying anthropology and theology of grace in the method you are using (Hesychasm) from what you believe (Thomism, neo-Thomism, etc.) you are going to create a tension (or worse) in your spiritual practice. If you are a Westerner, why would you bother? Do one or the other. If you are an Eastern Rite Catholic, there is very great room for personal confusion or worse. And we pointed out what we thought were the three options that faced the Eastern Rite Catholic faced with the possibility of choosing to practise Hesychasm or not. Orthodox Monk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Next, the Carmelites and the Carthusians have their own mystical traditions which are in harmony with the teachings of the Roman Pontiff. Why would they want to try out something new that might not be in harmony? While I do not know of any Byzantine rite Carthusians, there are Byzantine Carmelites, and these, like other members of the Byzantine rites of Western religious orders, often find themselves in conflict between the spiritual and disciplinary patrimony of their rite and the rule of their order. Father Robert Taft, a member of the Society of Jesus, expresses the dichotomy several times in his writings and revealed his own personal decision to follow the patrimony of the Byzantine rite, even when it conflicted with the rule (including the spirituality) of the Society of Jesus. Father Taft then goes on to praise and thank his superiors within the Society for never forcing him to make this choice; i.e., they have never insisted that the Rule of St. Ignatius Loyola supersede the requirements of the Byzantine rite (at least in Father Robert's case). This seems to be the approach taken these days by most Western religious orders in regard to their members who belong to a particular Eastern rite. Hence for these, there is no conflict. But going beyond that, I would note that monasticism in both the East and the West was originally highly peripatetic and syncretistic. That is, monks traveled, and as they did so, the found spiritual practices that appealed to them and integrated them into their rule of prayer. The solidification of "rules" seems to have grown out of the Cluniac movement and proliferated in the later middle ages. Since today the Catholic Church has regained its interest in the patristic period (as something more than a mine of proof texts for confessional polemics), why should there be a conflict between hesychia and other spiritual practices, if they are approached in the proper manner? Besides, as I noted, the Catholic Church has never condemned hesychia (though many Catholic theologians have done so), and as it is an accepted practice for Catholics living in the Byzantine rite, there should be no problem with its adoption by Catholics of the Roman rite. It is, after all, a personal spiritual path, not part of the Church's public worship (by its very nature, hesychia requires solititude), and so its use, like the use of the Rosary by Orthodox Christians or Byzantine Catholics, is eminently acceptable as a private devotion or spiritual practice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
3. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. Questions in my mind after reading and re-reading through the posts are these questions: What is "pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff?" What is the distinction and/or conflicts between "spiritual heritage" and dogmatic theology. Is there a dogmatic pronouncement from Rome regarding hesychasm?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 157
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 157 |
For as we pointed out, Thomism was around the turn of the 20th Century declared an authoritative exposition of the Catholic faith. But the argument of Barlaam against St Gregory Palamas was a Thomist argument. And Pope John-Paul II was a neo-Thomist, so his remarks on Hesychasm have to be read in that light. Here is the critical weakness of Orthodox Monk's argument. Orthodox Monk apparently believes that because Pius X and Benedict XVI strongly commended the theology of Thomas Aquinas that therefore it functions as the infallible touchstone for Catholic reflection. But of course, anyone who is acquainted with Catholic theology knows this is not the case. Thomas Aquinas will always have a special place within Catholic theology, but neither his philosophical principles nor his theological arguments are beyond debate and question. Just ask the Franciscans. Just ask just about any modern Catholic philosopher or theologian. Would Aquinas have approved of hesychasm? I do not know. Certainly it is true that Thomists have been critical of Palamism and its distinction between the divine essence and energies; but this critical stance should not be interpreted as a rejection of theosis: see especially A. N. Williams, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (1999). Regarding Barlaam and Aquinas, all that needs to said is that Barlaam was not a Thomist. His relationship to Western scholasticism is debatable. The dispute between Barlaam and Palamas was an inter-Eastern dispute, a dispute between two Orthodox students of Dionysius the Areopagite. The Catholic Church is not the monolithic reality that Orthodox Monk would have us believe; indeed, far greater theological and spiritual diversity can be found under her tent than can be found within Orthodoxy, for good or ill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,750 Likes: 28
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,750 Likes: 28 |
Pope John Paul II, in the Wednesday Audience [ catholicculture.org] (1996) that was quoted in this thread, provided a passing reference to hesychasm. A plain conclusion to what he stated is that he endorsed it but had reservations about "certain aspects" of hesychasm. We can't conclude anything more because we have no data on what those "certain aspects" might have been. Were they reservations about the theology of hesychasm? How it was practiced in the Church? Maybe it was a concern about those who might not practice it correctly? We don't know. One would need to research this being able to comment on it, let alone draw any conclusions beyond JPII's actual words. We can, however, without too much effort find support in other places. The Catholic Catechism does not use the term "hesychasm" (as far as I can tell) but it does speak to the Jesus Prayer: 2616 Prayer to Jesus is answered by him already during his ministry, through signs that anticipate the power of his death and Resurrection: Jesus hears the prayer of faith, expressed in words (the leper, Jairus, the Canaanite woman, the good thief) or in silence (the bearers of the paralytic, the woman with a hemorrhage who touches his clothes, the tears and ointment of the sinful woman). The urgent request of the blind men, "Have mercy on us, Son of David" or "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" has-been renewed in the traditional prayer to Jesus known as the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" Healing infirmities or forgiving sins, Jesus always responds to a prayer offered in faith: "Your faith has made you well; go in peace." 435 The name of Jesus is at the heart of Christian prayer. All liturgical prayers conclude with the words "through our Lord Jesus Christ". The Hail Mary reaches its high point in the words "blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." The Eastern prayer of the heart, the Jesus Prayer, says: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Many Christians, such as St. Joan of Arc, have died with the one word "Jesus" on their lips. While one cannot use these quotes to demonstrate a fully support of hesychasm, one can certainly see that the heart of hesychasm (the Jesus Prayer) is front and center an important part of prayer. One can easily find other texts, which support hesychasm (though again, few Catholic teachings contain a statement "we offer our full stamp of approval and permit you people to actually do this"). Pope Benedict spoke to hesychasm in his Wednesday Wednesday Audience [ vatican.va] on February 11, 2009. I quote an extended portion: John Climacus
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
After 20 Catecheses dedicated to the Apostle Paul, today I would like to return to presenting the great writers of the Church of the East and of the West in the Middle Ages. And I am proposing the figure of John known as Climacus, a Latin transliteration of the Greek term klimakos, which means of the ladder (klimax). This is the title of his most important work in which he describes the ladder of human life ascending towards God. He was born in about 575 a.d. He lived, therefore, during the years in which Byzantium, the capital of the Roman Empire of the East, experienced the greatest crisis in its history. The geographical situation of the Empire suddenly changed and the torrent of barbarian invasions swept away all its structures. Only the structure of the Church withstood them, continuing in these difficult times to carry out her missionary, human, social and cultural action, especially through the network of monasteries in which great religious figures such as, precisely, John Climacus were active.
John lived and told of his spiritual experiences in the Mountains of Sinai, where Moses encountered God and Elijah heard his voice. Information on him has been preserved in a brief Life (PG 88, 596-608), written by a monk, Daniel of Raithu. At the age of 16, John, who had become a monk on Mount Sinai, made himself a disciple of Abba Martyr, an "elder", that is, a "wise man". At about 20 years of age, he chose to live as a hermit in a grotto at the foot of the mountain in the locality of Tola, eight kilometres from the present-day St Catherine's Monastery. Solitude, however, did not prevent him from meeting people eager for spiritual direction, or from paying visits to several monasteries near Alexandria. In fact, far from being an escape from the world and human reality, his eremitical retreat led to ardent love for others (Life, 5) and for God (ibid., 7). After 40 years of life as a hermit, lived in love for God and for neighbour years in which he wept, prayed and fought with demons he was appointed hegumen of the large monastery on Mount Sinai and thus returned to cenobitic life in a monastery. However, several years before his death, nostalgic for the eremitical life, he handed over the government of the community to his brother, a monk in the same monastery.
John died after the year 650. He lived his life between two mountains, Sinai and Tabor and one can truly say that he radiated the light which Moses saw on Sinai and which was contemplated by the three Apostles on Mount Tabor!
He became famous, as I have already said, through his work, entitled The Climax, in the West known as the Ladder of Divine Ascent (PG 88, 632-1164). Composed at the insistent request of the hegumen of the neighbouring Monastery of Raithu in Sinai, the Ladder is a complete treatise of spiritual life in which John describes the monk's journey from renunciation of the world to the perfection of love. This journey according to his book covers 30 steps, each one of which is linked to the next. The journey may be summarized in three consecutive stages: the first is expressed in renunciation of the world in order to return to a state of evangelical childhood. Thus, the essential is not the renunciation but rather the connection with what Jesus said, that is, the return to true childhood in the spiritual sense, becoming like children. John comments: "A good foundation of three layers and three pillars is: innocence, fasting and temperance. Let all babes in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 3: 1) begin with these virtues, taking as their model the natural babes" (1, 20; 636). Voluntary detachment from beloved people and places permits the soul to enter into deeper communion with God. This renunciation leads to obedience which is the way to humility through humiliations which will never be absent on the part of the brethren. John comments: "Blessed is he who has mortified his will to the very end and has entrusted the care of himself to his teacher in the Lord: indeed he will be placed on the right hand of the Crucified One!" (4, 37; 704).
The second stage of the journey consists in spiritual combat against the passions. Every step of the ladder is linked to a principal passion that is defined and diagnosed, with an indication of the treatment and a proposal of the corresponding virtue. All together, these steps of the ladder undoubtedly constitute the most important treatise of spiritual strategy that we possess. The struggle against the passions, however, is steeped in the positive it does not remain as something negative thanks to the image of the "fire" of the Holy Spirit: that "all those who enter upon the good fight (cf. 1 Tm 6: 12), which is hard and narrow,... may realize that they must leap into the fire, if they really expect the celestial fire to dwell in them" (1,18; 636). The fire of the Holy Spirit is the fire of love and truth. The power of the Holy Spirit alone guarantees victory. However, according to John Climacus it is important to be aware that the passions are not evil in themselves; they become so through human freedom's wrong use of them. If they are purified, the passions reveal to man the path towards God with energy unified by ascesis and grace and, "if they have received from the Creator an order and a beginning..., the limit of virtue is boundless" (26/2, 37; 1068).
The last stage of the journey is Christian perfection that is developed in the last seven steps of the Ladder. These are the highest stages of spiritual life, which can be experienced by the "Hesychasts": the solitaries, those who have attained quiet and inner peace; but these stages are also accessible to the more fervent cenobites. Of the first three simplicity, humility and discernment John, in line with the Desert Fathers, considered the ability to discern, the most important. Every type of behaviour must be subject to discernment; everything, in fact, depends on one's deepest motivations, which need to be closely examined. Here one enters into the soul of the person and it is a question of reawakening in the hermit, in the Christian, spiritual sensitivity and a "feeling heart", which are gifts from God: "After God, we ought to follow our conscience as a rule and guide in everything," (26/1,5; 1013). In this way one reaches tranquillity of soul, hesychia, by means of which the soul may gaze upon the abyss of the divine mysteries.
The state of quiet, of inner peace, prepares the Hesychast for prayer which in John is twofold: "corporeal prayer" and "prayer of the heart". The former is proper to those who need the help of bodily movement: stretching out the hands, uttering groans, beating the breast, etc. (15, 26; 900). The latter is spontaneous, because it is an effect of the reawakening of spiritual sensitivity, a gift of God to those who devote themselves to corporeal prayer. In John this takes the name "Jesus prayer" (Iesou euche), and is constituted in the invocation of solely Jesus' name, an invocation that is continuous like breathing: "May your remembrance of Jesus become one with your breathing, and you will then know the usefulness of hesychia", inner peace (27/2, 26; 1112). At the end the prayer becomes very simple: the word "Jesus" simply becomes one with the breath.
The last step of the ladder (30), suffused with "the sober inebriation of the spirit", is dedicated to the supreme "trinity of virtues": faith, hope and above all charity. John also speaks of charity as eros (human love), a symbol of the matrimonial union of the soul with God, and once again chooses the image of fire to express the fervour, light and purification of love for God. The power of human love can be reoriented to God, just as a cultivated olive may be grafted on to a wild olive tree (cf. Rm 11: 24) (cf. 15, 66; 893). John is convinced that an intense experience of this eros will help the soul to advance far more than the harsh struggle against the passions, because of its great power. Thus, in our journey, the positive aspect prevails. Yet charity is also seen in close relation to hope: "Hope is the power that drives love. Thanks to hope, we can look forward to the reward of charity.... Hope is the doorway of love.... The absence of hope destroys charity: our efforts are bound to it, our labours are sustained by it, and through it we are enveloped by the mercy of God" (30, 16; 1157). The conclusion of the Ladder contains the synthesis of the work in words that the author has God himself utter: "May this ladder teach you the spiritual disposition of the virtues. I am at the summit of the ladder, and as my great initiate (St Paul) said: "So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love' (1 Cor 13: 13)!" (30, 18; 1160).
At this point, a last question must be asked: can the Ladder, a work written by a hermit monk who lived 1,400 years ago, say something to us today? Can the existential journey of a man who lived his entire life on Mount Sinai in such a distant time be relevant to us? At first glance it would seem that the answer must be "no", because John Climacus is too remote from us. But if we look a little closer, we see that the monastic life is only a great symbol of baptismal life, of Christian life. It shows, so to speak, in capital letters what we write day after day in small letters. It is a prophetic symbol that reveals what the life of the baptized person is, in communion with Christ, with his death and Resurrection. The fact that the top of the "ladder", the final steps, are at the same time the fundamental, initial and most simple virtues is particularly important to me: faith, hope and charity. These are not virtues accessible only to moral heroes; rather they are gifts of God to all the baptized: in them our life develops too. The beginning is also the end, the starting point is also the point of arrival: the whole journey towards an ever more radical realization of faith, hope and charity. The whole ascent is present in these virtues. Faith is fundamental, because this virtue implies that I renounce my arrogance, my thought, and the claim to judge by myself without entrusting myself to others. This journey towards humility, towards spiritual childhood is essential. It is necessary to overcome the attitude of arrogance that makes one say: I know better, in this my time of the 21st century, than what people could have known then. Instead, it is necessary to entrust oneself to Sacred Scripture alone, to the word of the Lord, to look out on the horizon of faith with humility, in order to enter into the enormous immensity of the universal world, of the world of God. In this way our soul grows, the sensitivity of the heart grows toward God. Rightly, John Climacus says that hope alone renders us capable of living charity; hope in which we transcend the things of every day, we do not expect success in our earthly days but we look forward to the revelation of God himself at last. It is only in this extension of our soul, in this self-transcendence, that our life becomes great and that we are able to bear the effort and disappointments of every day, that we can be kind to others without expecting any reward. Only if there is God, this great hope to which I aspire, can I take the small steps of my life and thus learn charity. The mystery of prayer, of the personal knowledge of Jesus, is concealed in charity: simple prayer that strives only to move the divine Teacher's heart. So it is that one's own heart opens, one learns from him his own kindness, his love. Let us therefore use this "ascent" of faith, hope and charity. In this way we will arrive at true life. Regarding the silliness of anyone concluding that St. Gregory Palamas is not a saint in the Catholic Church because one does not have a proper quote from a pope specifically stating this, anyone making such a conclusion must also state that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't really consider the Twelve Apostles to be saints, that they give them only titles of honor because one can't find on a Google search a link to each Church's formal declaration of sainthood for them (an a reaffirming statement by each succeeding pope, patriarch and bishop). And, of course, this is the same for all saints. I will strongly agree with Father Kimel. Orthodox Monk is not the arbitor deciding what the popes and Council really meant to teach. He is twisting Catholic theology to mean what he needs it to mean so that he can condemn it. He is correct in stating that Thomism is a normative expression of Catholic theology. He has offered no evidence that states that Thomism is the exclusive expressive of Catholic theology (excluding all others).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 149
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 149 |
While I do not know of any Byzantine rite Carthusians, there are Byzantine Carmelites, and these, like other members of the Byzantine rites of Western religious orders, often find themselves in conflict between the spiritual and disciplinary patrimony of their rite and the rule of their order. This is getting OT perhaps, and excuse my ignorance, but what types of items would be of conflict? Thanks, Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288 |
A question, What do you mean by OT Dave? Also, I have seen ppl post ummm IMO (is that it or is there a letter or two missing?). What does that mean?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 149
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 149 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288 |
Thank you. New internet lingo for me lol.
Kyrie eleison,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477 |
The Catholic Church is not the monolithic reality that Orthodox Monk would have us believe; indeed, far greater theological and spiritual diversity can be found under her tent than can be found within Orthodoxy, for good or ill. Some might say that ultimately this is the crux of the argument and that the practice of and theology behind hesychasm, being itself monolithic, leaves no room for compatibility with a system that is spiritually diverse.
|
|
|
|
|
