Monday, August 10, 2026

To Archbishop Paul of Sydney: Question from Russia About Grace


 

Your Eminence!

I accidentally found your address and decided to write, although I understand that I am taking up your precious time, Vladyka. But the problem facing me and my friends is very serious.

... I have always been interested in religion, and along the way, I even graduated from the Faculty of Atheism. This is what led me to the primary source—the Gospel; I converted and was baptized in the Orthodox Church...

After baptism, my spiritual development progressed more quickly... But by that time, we already understood everything. And thus, the Gospel verses sounded in sharp dissonance with the real life of the Soviet Orthodox Church. There is probably no need to tell you about this. However, briefly: in the Novosibirsk diocese under the omophorion of Metropolitan Gedeon, cowardice, greed, lies, and the cult of Gedeon (from whom they paint the image of God the Father, etc.) flourish. The Church has bowed before the Beast.

And we began to wonder: is the Soviet Church true? Are the sacraments performed by KGB agents in cassocks valid?

Vladimir Solovyov writes that the personal qualities of a clergyman do not matter at all if he "enters by the door into the sheepfold," meaning he is ordained through the correct hierarchical succession, and the grace of God is granted to us through him during the sacraments.

And here, Vladyka, is my question, for which I have addressed you—is the priesthood in the USSR legitimate, i.e., in accordance with the Apostolic rules? After all, all those ordained pass through the filter of the KGB, the "patriarch" was openly imposed, his election was conducted with an open roll-call vote in the presence of atheists, and so on.

My friends tried to establish contact with the Catacomb Church—without success, they found no one. Then everyone decided that the red Church was finished, the West is far away, but the Catholics are nearby. Now in Novosibirsk, there is a Catholic church, with a wonderful priest, loved by the youth, and so our group, having lost faith in the Pimen-Sergianism, is gradually converting to Catholicism... And I am almost the only one left still doubting.

Yes, undoubtedly, the Catholic Church is a Christian Church. What we see in Soviet Orthodoxy is paganism and Satan worship disguised as Christianity. But there is also the Western ROCOR! And I would like, Vladyka, to know the opinion of the Church in exile on these matters. I ask you to respond.

May the Lord keep you!

(signature) 26 September 1989

 

Response of Archbishop Paul of Sydney and Australia-New Zealand (+1995)

 

Archbishop Paul of Sydney and Australia-New Zealand                                                                 20 Celtsford Ave, Croydon N.S.W. 2132

Phone: 747 5892

 

Friday, October 21st / November 3rd, 1989                                                                                   Feast of St. Hilarion the Great.

 

Dear in the Lord,

Sergei Yuryevich!

Having returned last Tuesday from an almost two-month trip abroad, I read your letter from September 26 of this year. I will not hide that your letter not only alarmed me but also shook me. Everything you write about Sergianism, on which the existence of the Moscow Patriarchate is based, is well known to us here in the free world, and the position of the Russian Church Abroad on Sergianism is absolutely clear—we categorically reject it as a betrayal and treason against the Church. I am shaken by the consequences of Sergianism—this terrible disease that has afflicted our Church, or rather, a certain part of its organism. But one cannot expect anything else: godlessness is incompatible with the holiness of the Church, and the distortion is evident. You are also bearing witness to this.

Not long ago, at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, after reviewing letters and testimonies from Russia about the harmful influence of the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate on the souls of believers, we discussed the very question that concerns and troubles you—namely, the question of grace. All the actions of certain leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate speak against them. But what, then, can be said about the millions of faithful Orthodox Russian people? Are they truly deprived of the grace of the Holy Mysteries? And all of us, bishops of the free part of the long-suffering and persecuted Russian Orthodox Church, while fully and categorically rejecting Sergianism, expressed the view that it is precisely for the sake of these little ones that, despite the unworthiness of the ministers, the Lord does not take away His grace. The Lord Jesus Christ speaks to the people and His disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do” (Matthew 23:1-3). From this, it is evident that the Lord, to some extent, still recognized some authority for teaching in the Old Testament Church even among those who had betrayed Him. This can be applied to today's situation. However, by these words, we do not in any way defend or justify the Moscow Patriarchate.

Who and what is the Russian Orthodox Church for all of us Orthodox Russian people? It is our Mother, who, for over a thousand years, has given birth to each of us into a new life of grace in Christ through the Sacrament of Baptism; who has nourished us with the Body and Blood of Christ, strengthened us with the grace of God, created in us the image and likeness of God, the image of the Orthodox Christian, the character of the Russian person, and the character of our entire nation, defining our historical path, our national self-awareness, and our very existence. In short, she is our loving Mother, to whom we owe everything. And who are these unworthy ministers of hers? They are diseased, infected members of her body. But should we abandon our Mother because of this, leave her, betray her? Where is our duty to her? Where is our love, where is our filial gratitude? We must help our Mother recover, cut off the infected parts of her body, but not abandon her, not betray her. Or can we reject all of our historical past, our Russian essence, what has created Russian culture? Catholicism, if it were in Russia, would have created a different culture, a different Russian person—not the one the Russian people have been, with their spiritual beauty, their holiness, and their saints, which have amazed foreigners. To convert to Catholicism is to betray Orthodoxy, our historical path, and Russian culture, that is, to cease being Russian, to abandon our people.

I implore you and your friends, despite everything, to remain Russian. Russia needs you; it needs healthy, fresh forces to overcome the evil that now reigns within her. If you betray her, what will become of Russia?! Communism is a disease that has afflicted Russia, a temporary phenomenon. It will pass! And it depends on you, our Orthodox Russian youth, our hope and future, what Russia will become. We believe in you. May the Lord help you and bless you in the righteous and holy work of serving the Truth—Christ and His Holy Church.

With sincere love for you and all your friends, the Orthodox Russian youth, and those who are wavering.

+Archbishop Paul

 

Russian source: https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/41243.html

 

May One Speak of the Union of Christians Apart from Grace and Truth? (1964)

By the Blessed & Ever-Memorable Archbishop Averky of Jordanville

 

 

All ye that in Christ have been baptized, Christ have ye put on.

We have just celebrated the Great Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, or the Theophany. Wondrous is this festival! “The Christian mysteries,” says the holy hierarch Theophan [the Recluse] of Vysha, concerning this feast, “shine forth here with their Divine light, and they illumine the minds and hearts of those who keep this great celebration with faith” (Thoughts for Every Day of the Year). It is for this reason that the very feast itself is called the “illumination” in our Church Typicon.

But what does this illumination consist of? It comprises the illumining and sanctification of our minds and hearts through Grace and Truth, brought to earth for the salvation of people by the Incarnate Only-Begotten Son of God Himself, as Christ’s beloved disciple, Saint John the Theologian, bears witness at the very start of his Gospel: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us… full of grace and truth.”

“And of His fulness have we all received, and grace for grace; for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1: 14, 16-17).

When Christ was born, only a few people knew of this. Only on the day of His Baptism did He clearly and openly appear for that great ministry of His, for which He had become incarnate, and therefore, in her hymns, the Holy Church calls the festival of the Baptism or Christ, the Theophany, the “most radiant” and the “most glorious” day, even in comparison with that most joyous feast for us the Nativity of Christ, and, exulting, she chants: “In the Jordan River’s streams, the Saviour, Who is grace and truth, hath openly appeared to all, and hath enlightened them that once slept in the shadow and the dark; for He hath come and shone forth, the Light unapproachable” (Exapostilarion, 3rd tone).

But what is exactly is the “grace” and “truth,” imparted to us on the day of Theophany?

What exactly happens that is important to us on this “most radiant” and “most glorious” festival?

On this day, the sinless Christ accepted baptism from John in the waters of the Jordan, so that in His Person He might wash away the sins of all mankind, taken upon Himself in His inexpressible love for man. On this day, the Master of heaven and of earth bows his neck and receives baptism from a servant, so that He might give an example of humility by observing the rule of baptism established by Him for all people, so that He might thus fulfil “all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and by His own example sanctify this great mysterion of spiritual rebirth, without which it is impossible to enter into the Heavenly Kingdom.

On this day, the Messiah Christ first manifested Himself to the world as the beloved Only-Begotten Son of God, in Whom there rests the favour of God the Father and in Whom the Holy Spirit rests. His measureless humility opened wide the heavens and clearly revealed to the people the formerly hidden mystery of the Three Persons of the Divinity: Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.

On this day, Jesus Christ, having reached the age of majority according to the law, in that He had reached thirty years of age, enters upon His public ministry to the race of man; having remained until this time in obscurity, today He is manifest to the world and His light is signed upon us, illumining the people “that sat in darkness and in the shadow of death” with a mystical illuminations from on high.

In what does this “illumination” consist?

In what we received today in the holy Apostle [reading]: In the Jordan waters, “the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age, looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:11-13).

Thus, our Saviour, Grace and Truth, Christ appeared that He might proclaim to us liberty from sin and the beginning of a new life - a life according to Grace and Truth.

Believing with our whole heart in this Divine Truth, brought to us by the Incarnate Son of God, and accepting this saving Grace in the Mysterion of Baptism, we die unto sin and we are born again unto a new, pure, holy and God-pleasing life, we are clothed upon with Christ and we become one with Him through Grace.

How can we dare to sin, if we have died to sin, if we have been clothed with Christ and become one with Him?

In truth, sin is now something completely foreign to us Christians; it is something wholly not our own - it is a rude attack upon our nature reborn in Christ: we cannot sin at will. It is not in vain that the holy Apostle informs us: “as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death, we are buried with him by baptism into death, knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him, likewise reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Christ Jesus our Lord” (see Rom. 6:3-11).

Thus, the holy Apostles ends this instruction: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof, neither yield ye up your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield ye yourselves up unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6:12-13).

“Sin shall not have dominion over you,” the Apostles concludes and he explains: “For ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14).

From all of the above, it should be abundantly clear that where there is neither grace nor truth, there is no freedom from sin; where they disdain grace and truth, there they involuntarily sin and excuse sin, and there is no Christianity.

But grace and truth abide only in the true Church, namely that Church which was founded by the incarnate Only-Begotten Son of God, and which was granted the great promise, that the gates of hades should not prevail against her (Matt. 16:18), and which, it follows, always was, is and will be until the end of the age, and does not stand in need of being founded anew.

It is from this precise viewpoint that we must understand and assess all that is happening in the world now.

And it is because of this that we cannot but be horrified at that which is accurately called “a sign of the times,” and is in actuality a terrible, terrifying, ominous sign that we, who witness it and see it, behold who are living through our dreadful times.

We have in mind those “fruits” which the so-called “Ecumenical Movement” has produced, particularly now the meeting that has taken place, and the “symbolical” kiss, between the Pope of Rome, Paul VI, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I.

[Now in 2012, nearly forty years on, we could add countless other examples of meetings, common prayers, “sacramental hospitality,” to this one instance that Archbishop Averky cites - translator].

It is not the meeting itself, such as it was, that horrifies us, but its inner content, which encloses within something spiritually unhealthy, at root rejecting authentic Christianity, something of a fully ecumenical bent, which was so clearly and powerfully exposed in Patriarch Athenagoras words themselves, when he spoke in a sermon before setting out for the Holy Land and for this meeting with the Pope: “I will meet the Pope and embrace him as a brother, leaving aside theological discussions.”

“What is this?” - it only remains for us to ask: “Extreme mindlessness or a conscious betrayal?”

Did we really so quarrel with the Pope that it was necessary to be reconciled, demonstrating before the whole world this “reconciliation” with brotherly embraces?

Or does Patriarch Athenagoras desire to abound more in love that the very “Apostle of love” himself, the beloved disciple of the Lord, Saint John the Theologian, who tells us in a teaching which stands for all times: “If there come any unto you and bring not this (the true, Apostolic teaching of faith and piety) doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither greet him” (2 John 10)?

Is Patriarch Athenagoras not a theologian? If he really did not study theology and is not aware of the fundamental dogmatic truths of Orthodox Christian teaching, nor how they are manifested in the spiritual and moral life of each and every Orthodox Christian, is it not a mistake that he bears such a high calling?

Can it really be that our separation from the Roman Catholics was caused by some purely personal feelings of hostility, by some personal ill-will?

Or is it that our profound divergence from them, being dogmatic as also of a spiritual and moral character, only came about through some abstract disagreement of learned theologians, divorced from real life, mindlessly quarrelling between themselves? And was it necessary only to “make peace” with the Pope, so that all these disagreements and “discussions” could be so lightly settled?

Truly, one could only marvel at such infantile naïvety on the part of the “First Hierarch of Orthodoxy” (as the Patriarch of Constantinople considers himself by tradition, it being once the [premier] see of the world empire), if only this apparent naïvety did not conceal something much more dreadful.

All this is exactly in the spirit of authentic ecumenism – ecumenism without a mask. Our Orthodox “ecumenists” have for a long time persistently assured us that they had entered the ecumenical movement with one purpose - which outwardly appears wholly good - “to witness before the heterodox about the truth of Holy Orthodoxy,” “to reveal to them the depth and beauty of Holy Orthodoxy,” and thus “to draw them to embrace Holy Orthodoxy, from which they had fallen away.”

And how has it turned out in fact?

The complete opposite thing has come about: not the return to Holy Orthodoxy of those who had fallen away, but the tacit, “symbolical” recognition of the unimportance and the insubstantiality of all that which distinguishes Orthodoxy from heterodoxy, that is and that caused a complete falling away from Her, and therefore also from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Christ the Saviour, of Roman Catholicism and thereafter of Protestantism and the other, now numberless, sects and every possible self-directed confessional entity, which without any rationale lays claims for itself to the name “Church of Christ.”

Grace and truth, which abide only in the true Church, which has received the promise of Christ that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against Her, are, apparently, completely forgotten!

And how strange it is to hear from the “First Hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church” that all the distinguishing characteristics of Holy Orthodoxy, which form a definite barrier between it and Roman Catholicism, are no longer to be the subject of theological discussion.

The dogmas of Holy Orthodoxy are not somehow abstractions, out of touch with the life of truth, such that we can consider them or recognise them as inconsequential.

The dogmas - the great and saving truths of the Faith, were revealed to us by the incarnate Son of God; they are His Divine words. And these “words, that I speak unto you,” as He Himself says, “they are Spirit and they are life” (John 6:63).

How can we consider them as having no substance in the great work of the union of all Christians, which can only come about in grace and in truth?

How can one think that this task can consist only of “brotherly” embraces and kisses?

And are such kisses not those of Judas, if behind them there is concealed the betrayal of grace and truth?

And furthermore, the fundamental difference between us and the Roman Catholics and all the others, who profess to call themselves Christians, obtains precisely in spirit and in life.

It is awful to say, but apparently for the contemporary ecumenists, in whose number one can think to include both Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI, even Baptism itself, which was inaugurated for all who desire to become Christians by Christ the Saviour Himself on the great day of Theophany, is not a great Mysterion (sacrament), which opens to us the entrance into the Heavenly Kingdom, but just an empty subject of “theological discussion,” devoid of any significant meaning. And therefore, for eternal salvation, in the view that is precisely theirs, it is not a necessity to be baptized and to be clothed in Christ. For their talk now is of a general union not only of Christians, but with Jews, though they do not recognise Christ the Saviour as the Messiah - (concerning this the notorious proposal of the Vatican Council testified regarding the Jews and the amicable regard that the Pope now has for the state of Israel) - and with the Muslims and with the pagans.

They speak and write more and more nowadays about the one, common, universal religion for all peoples, just as they do about a one world government.

Yes, this is in very truth a sign of the times, but a dreadful sign! The union of all peoples, “at any price,” and “in spite of everything,” is required, as we have long since known well from the prophesies of the ancient Fathers of the Church, so that in the last days all peoples will be united under one authority, and it will attempt to substitute another for Christ.

Truly, even now it is fearful to live in the world in the midst of such anti-Christ untruth, such deception, such falsehood and hypocrisy, through which the servants of the coming Anti-Christ strive even now to replace in the consciences of the people and to obliterate the true Church.

But, God is with us! And “the fear of them we shall not fear, neither shall we be troubled!” For we know that the “gates of Hades” shall not overcome the true Church. It remains only for us to adhere to this true Church until the very end, to draw from her the grace and truth of Christ, and always to bear in mind that we, who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ, and therefore we must live worthily of our high calling as Christians, as ones dead unto sin, and raised again to a new, God-pleasing life - life in Christ.

 

Source: The Shepherd: An Orthodox Christian Pastoral Magazine, January 2012, pp. 2-9.

A person can spend his entire life within the Church without ever allowing the Church to enter into him.

Theoktistos the Cretan | August 10, 2026

 

 

We ask many things of Christ. We ask for health, work, protection, for our children to do well, for a sick person to be healed, for a marriage to be saved, for a financial difficulty to be resolved, for a road that has been closed to open, for a temptation to depart.

We run to the Panagia, we invoke the Saints, we hold Paraklesis services, light candles, write down names, make vows, go on pilgrimages, beseech, weep, and persist. And rightly so. We are children of God, and it is to God that we will have recourse. But amid this unceasing stream of our requests, we usually avoid one very simple and very difficult question: What are we prepared to offer Christ? What do we offer the Panagia? What do we give to the Saints whom we so readily invoke? For many times our relationship with God ends up becoming a strange spiritual transaction. We submit the request and expect God to grant it. If what we asked for happens, we say, “Glory to God.” If it does not happen, the complaints begin. “Why did God not hear me?”

Have you ever listened to God? That we do not ask. Christ told you to forgive. Did you forgive? He told you not to judge. Did you stop judging? He told you to love your enemy. Did you love him? He told you to repent. Did you repent? He told you to take up your cross. Did you take it up? He told you to cut off your own will. Did you cut it off? And then we stand before His icon and say plaintively, “My Christ, why do You not hear me?” But, my child, when did you ever listen to Him? We want a Christ who will listen to us unceasingly, while we reserve for ourselves the right almost never to listen to Him.

We want a Christ who heals, but does not rebuke us. A Panagia who protects us, but does not teach us, through her “be it unto me according to thy word,” what surrender to the will of God means. We want Saints who work miracles, but we do not want to learn how they became Saints. We go to Saint Nektarios and ask for healing, but when we are wronged or slandered, we do not remember at all how he accepted injustice. We ask Saint Paisios for help, but we leave philotimo, self-denial, simplicity, self-reproach, and sacrifice to Saint Paisios. We ask Saint Porphyrios for enlightenment, but we are not prepared to cut off even a single evil thought about our brother. We want the Saint’s icon in the house, but we do not want the Saint’s way of life in the house. We want his vigil lamp, his holy oil, the amulet, the pilgrimage, the miracle. We do not want his life. Then what exactly are we asking of the Saints? To cooperate with our passions? To intercede so that we may get our own way? To persuade God to adapt His will to our own desires?

The Saints are not intermediaries of our will. They are the people who surrendered their own will so that the will of God might live within them. But this is the part of holiness that does not move us so much. The miracle moves us. The ascetic struggle that preceded the miracle does not. The incorrupt relic moves us. The mortification of the old man that preceded it does not. The icon of the Saint moves us. The repentance that made that person an icon of Christ does not.

And here, we who wear the cassock must be the first to take heed. For it is very easy for a monk to speak about the secularization of others and not see his own. A person can leave the world and take the whole world with him into his cell. He may have no personal property and yet have a terrible attachment to his own will. He may not seek worldly honors and yet seek monastic honors. He may want to be taken into account, to be consulted, to have his spirituality recognized, to have his discernment praised. Even ascetic struggle itself can become food for the ego. I may fast more than another and despise him. I may keep vigil more and consider him negligent. I may say more prayer ropes and feel that I have become something. Well then, what have I done? I took off the worldly garment and dressed the same old man in a cassock. If the monk asks Christ for Grace but does not give Him his will, if he asks for enlightenment but does not accept correction, if he prays for the whole world but cannot tolerate the brother in the neighboring cell, something is not right. You may say a thousand times, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me,” while at the same time thinking that you are not the one who needs mercy, but that everyone else needs correction. Then the mouth says the Prayer while the mind has set up a tribunal. What benefit is the prayer rope if every knot passes through our fingers, yet not one of them loosens a knot of our egoism?

A hierarch may speak ceaselessly about Christ, while his heart is more disturbed over primacy, rank, recognition, forms of address, who honored him and who did not honor him. Then what did he offer Christ? The mitre? The engolpion? The throne? What would Christ do with these things? He was born in a manger, and upon the Cross He revealed His Kingdom. What a strange thing it is to serve a God who emptied Himself, while we worry lest our prestige be diminished. To preach Him who washed the disciples’ feet, and to be troubled over who will sit first. To exalt the Cross liturgically and yet be unable to endure even the slightest personal humiliation. And a priest may serve the Liturgy for decades, hear confessions, preach, cense, bless, and eventually become accustomed to the holy things. This is more terrible than many outward falls. To become accustomed to the Holy Chalice. To become accustomed to the Sanctuary. To become accustomed to the Gospel. To say, “Peace be unto all,” and not speak to his brother. To say, “Let us love one another,” and harbor resentment. To read the Gospel of forgiveness and not forgive. To hold the Body of Christ in his hands while at the same time holding in his heart antipathies, rivalries, ambitions, and pettiness. How terrible for Christ to be in our hands and yet not to have found a place within us. And how much more terrible for this to happen so many times that eventually it no longer frightens us.

Only after saying these things about ourselves can we also speak about the person who enters the church. Otherwise, strictness becomes hypocrisy. If I am not fighting against my own will, how can I speak to another about repentance? If I desire honors, how can I speak to him about humility? If I do not forgive my brother, how can I tell him to forgive his own? First, then, the knife upon ourselves, and afterward the word to others. But the faithful person too must at some point ask himself what exactly he is going to the church to do. We do not go to church in order to do God a favor. Someone says, “I went to church today as well.” So what? You went. What happened within you? Did you enter angry and leave angry? Did you enter judging and leave judging? Did you enter not speaking to your brother and leave still not speaking to him? Then you changed place; you did not change your life. You can light twenty candles and not forgive one person. You can hold forty Paraklesis services and torment your household every day. You can fast from oil and devour another person with your tongue. You can receive Communion frequently and harbor resentment within you. You can venerate the icons with compunction and treat living human beings, who are images of God, with unimaginable harshness. What kind of piety is this? The candle is good, but the candle cannot be burning while the heart remains frozen. Fasting is holy, but the mouth cannot fast from oil while not fasting from poison. Pilgrimage is beneficial, but what benefit is there in traveling a thousand kilometers for a Saint and not traveling two meters to ask forgiveness from our brother?

A person can spend his entire life within the Church without ever allowing the Church to enter into him. He may know all the services, all the fasts, all the monasteries, all the Saints, all the Elders, which spiritual father is strict and which is lenient; he may be able to discuss ecclesiastical matters for hours, while his heart remains unmoved. This is very dangerous. The person who is far from the Church at least knows that he is far away. But the one who has learned all the outward forms of piety is in danger of thinking that he has already arrived. And then he begins to measure others. Who dressed properly, who made the sign of the Cross properly, who fasted, who did not fast, who received Communion, who did not receive Communion. But he does not measure himself. For ourselves, we want all of God’s mercy. For the other person, we want all of His justice. We ask God not to remember our sins, while we remember with remarkable precision what the other person did to us fifteen years ago. We ask for forgiveness and do not forgive. We ask for longsuffering and tolerate no one. We ask God to raise us up when we fall, and as soon as the other person falls, we rush to trample him down. We ask God to look upon us with leniency, while we examine our brother under a microscope. And then we stand in prayer and say, “Lord, have mercy.” On whom should the Lord have mercy? On me alone? Is the other person not His child?

We often do the same thing with the Panagia. “My Panagia, do this for me and I will bring you a candle.” But what is the Panagia, my child? Is she a merchant? Is she waiting for your candle? She is waiting for your heart. You can buy the candle in five minutes. It may take you a lifetime to cut off your will. The Panagia offered her very self to God. “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” We, many times, pray in exactly the opposite way. Instead of “Thy will be done,” in practice we say, “My will be done.” This is what I want; let this happen. Let this person come. Let that person leave. Let this door open. Let this difficulty disappear. Let this plan succeed. Let everything around me change. But should I change? No. I am to remain as I am, and God is to rearrange the whole world so that my will may be satisfied. And when it does not happen, we say, “The Panagia did not hear me.” How do you know that she did not hear you? Perhaps it was precisely because she heard you that she did not give you what you were asking for. Perhaps her protection was precisely the closed door about which you are complaining.

And how skillful we become when it comes to justifying our passions. Our own anger becomes “righteous indignation.” Our own ambition becomes “zeal.” Our own harshness becomes “boldness.” Our own judgment becomes “discernment.” Our own curiosity becomes “concern.” We find a fine spiritual word, place it over the passion, and put ourselves at ease. Instead of repenting of the passion, we baptize it. The Saints, however, did not change the names of their passions. They changed themselves. We want to change the name and keep the disease. That is why we have multiplied in words and become impoverished in lived experience. We share sayings about humility and become angry if someone does not greet us. We speak about silence and comment on everyone. We admire the poverty of the Saints and count what our neighbor has. We speak about the Martyrs and cannot endure a single insult. We read about the ascetics and cannot bear for someone to disrupt our schedule. We venerate the Cross and ask Christ for a life in which nothing of our own will be crucified. We want the Crucified One, but without crucifixion. We want the Resurrection, but without Golgotha. We want holiness, but without ascetic struggle. We want Paradise, but without repentance. Well, how can all these things come to pass?

And even our time we give to God by the dropper. Hours on the phone do not tire us. Hours at a table pass quickly. Hours spent in conversations, traveling, and entertainments do not seem like much to us. But we enter the Divine Liturgy and before long we are looking at the clock. People telephone churches and monasteries and ask, “What time does Holy Communion come out?” What kind of question is that? What does “What time does Holy Communion come out?” mean? As though it were something delivered at a specific time and we wanted to stop by and pick it up. The Divine Eucharist is not the final five minutes of a service. The Divine Liturgy begins with “Blessed is the Kingdom,” and the entire assembly moves toward the Chalice. If some great person of this world invited you to a formal dinner, would you telephone and ask, “What time should I come just to eat and leave?” You would be ashamed. But before Christ we are not ashamed. We want to receive and leave. To receive Communion without having communed in the prayer of the Church. To receive the Gift without offering even our time. And then we wonder why our life is not transformed. But do we want Christ as something we receive, or as the One to whom we surrender our life?

What, then, does Christ ask of us? Our money? Everything is His. Our candles? He is the Light. Our votive offerings? What need does God have of gold? Our great churches? Heaven and earth cannot contain Him, and will our buildings impress Him? Christ asks for one thing, and it is precisely this that we find most difficult to give Him: “My son, give me thine heart.” He asks for you. Because you can offer all the other things and remain exactly as you were. You can give money and remain avaricious. You can light a hundred candles and remain in darkness. You can make countless pilgrimages and not move even one step away from your egoism. You can build a church and leave your soul in ruins. You can fill your house with icons and find no room for Christ within your heart. You can even put on the cassock and not have surrendered a single inch of your own will. But when you give your heart, then the other thrones we have set up within it must fall: my sense of being right, my will, my ambition, my malice, my vindictiveness, my self-love. There the true offering begins.

For this reason, love for Christ is not proven when we say, “My Christ, I love You.” That is easy. It is proven when the time comes to choose between Christ and something we have loved more than Him. On the one hand, self-interest; on the other, His commandment. What will I choose? On the one hand, revenge; on the other, forgiveness. What will I choose? On the one hand, ambition; on the other, humility. On the one hand, my sense of being right; on the other, peace. On the one hand, my will; on the other, “Thy will be done.” There the grand words come to an end. There, faith is revealed. For we easily offer God that which costs us nothing. The difficult thing is to offer Him precisely that which we have turned into an idol.

Could it be, then, that the greatest prayer is not, “My Christ, change what is happening around me,” but, “My Christ, change me”?

Not only, “My Panagia, protect my child,” but, “My Panagia, teach me to love my child without making him the possession of my own will.”

Not only, “My Saint, help me to succeed,” but, “Help me not to lose my soul in order to succeed.”

Not only, “Lord, take this cross away from me,” but, “If this cross is becoming a road that leads to You, grant that I may not flee from beneath it.”

These are difficult prayers. Because they may indeed be heard. And then God will not simply change the circumstances around us. He will begin to change us.

The Saints gave everything and asked for Christ alone. We, many times, ask everything from Christ and find it difficult to give Him even one passion. One grudge. One old enmity. One stubbornness. One injustice. One ambition. One hidden sin. This is the vow that we find most difficult to make. Not, “My Panagia, if this happens, I will bring you a candle,” but, “My Christ, this thing separates me from You. Take it. And because You see that even now, I find it difficult to give it to You, at least make me want to give it to You.” There repentance begins. Not when we ask God to become a partner in our plans, but when we allow Him to tear down within us whatever does not lead to Him.

For this reason, before we ask Christ for something again, before we beseech the Panagia again, before we run again to a Saint, let us for a moment ask the question in reverse. Not, “What do I want from God?” but, “What does God want from me?” And this one question may be worth more than a hundred requests. Because then we will understand that Christ was never waiting for our candles, our vows, our promises, our grand words, or our displays of piety. He was waiting for us. From the monk He awaits the monk, and not his cassock. From the hierarch, the man, and not his throne. From the priest, his heart, and not only his priestly ministry. From the faithful person, the person himself, and not only his candle. And it will be terrible if one day we come before Him having held prayer ropes, having lit thousands of candles, having made pilgrimages, attended services, made vows and prayers, having spoken countless times about Him, and then realize that throughout our entire life we offered Him almost everything except the one thing He truly asked of us: ourselves.

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/08/blog-post_614.html

The Hesychastic Method

Source: Russian Hesychasm: The Spirituality of Nil Sorskij, George A. Maloney, S.J., Mouton, The Hague, 1973, Appendix II, pp. 269-279.

 

 

In presenting a rapid survey of Hesychasm, one cannot leave out of discussion its method, be it for profit or abuse. But as it does not enter into the true essence of Hesychasm, we relegate the discussion of it to this appendix.

Various historical factors in the evolution of Hesychasm prepared the way for a more materialistic, mechanical method. The most fundamental was to take the physical, material heart as the place of "return" to God. The Old and New Testament as in other Semitic writings, conceived the heart, that organ so indispensable for the life of the body, as also the centre of all psychological and moral life, as the centre of the very interior life. [1] It is physiologically the centre of reaction for emotions and sentiments, so naturally it became the seat of all sensible and affective life. Mixing metaphorical language with psychological and physiological phenomena, the heart became the place where the individual person was most an individual. That which made him most typically himself and not another person, the heart, for here he "thinks", deliberates, determines his way of conduct towards God and other men.

The spiritual writer who remotely prepared the way for the Byzantine mysticism of the heart was Diadochus of Photike. [2] What the body along with the five senses is for the exterior life, the heart is for the interior life of man. Through the sin of Adam, a schism resulted in man, destroying the simplicity that existed in him with the godlike nous in complete hegemony over all the other subordinated faculties and senses. [3] This image of God resides in the intimate recesses of the heart, but constantly is being besieged by the inordinate activities of the exterior senses. The heart has a "sense" which permits it to "feel" God, to become aware of His presence in the heart. [4] This conscious awareness is brought about by meditation and constant remembrance of the Lord Jesus and by living according to God's commandments. [5]

We already pointed out that Simeon the New Theologian had read the 100 Chapters of Diadochus and tended to emphasize the conscious awareness of divine activity in the soul that Diadochus insisted on. Like Diadochus, who placed his "one natural sense of the soul" [6] in the intellectual faculty of nous, Simeon also posits the interior "one sense". "He who gives us that which is above the senses, also endows us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, with another sense which is above the senses, in order that we may clearly and purely apprehend His gifts and blessings, which are above the senses." [7] But he stresses more than any of his predecessors the importance of mystical gifts, visions, and the confirmation of the activity of the Holy Spirit by sensible repercussions, especially by the highest and surest sign of His presence, a material light.

If Simeon did not actually write The Method of Hesychast Prayer [8] he at least prepared the way. The Method, which Nil Sorskij certainly knew and attributed to Simeon, presents an innovation on the general doctrine of Simeon which would indicate strongly that a later admirer of Simeon used his reputation to promulgate innovations. A definite technique is recommended and with an assurance that if the instructions are carried through, one would surely see the divine light in his soul. "Sit in a peaceful cell, in a corner and do that which I tell you: close the door and raise your mind above any vain and temporal object. Then, letting your beard rest on your chest, turn your bodily eyes with your whole mind concentrating on the middle of the stomach, on the so-called navel. Suppress the breathing of the air which passes through the nose in a way so as not to breathe too often. Explore with the mind inside the entrails to find there the place of the heart where all the powers of the soul are wont to gather. In the beginning, you will find a darkness and a dogged heaviness, but in persevering and practicing this occupation day and night, you will find, o marvel, a happiness without limit. As soon as in fact the mind finds the place of the heart, it perceives suddenly that which it never knew; for it perceives the air as existing at the centre of the heart and it sees itself all immersed in light and full of discernment. Before, when besieged by a stinging temptation, the mind was not able to combat successfully; now through the invocation of Jesus Christ, it drives out and destroys it utterly." [9]

The similarity, as I. Hausherr points out10 between this method and that proposed by Nicephorus, monk of Mount Athos, could not be mere accident. The accent is stronger now for exact observation of a material technique with more assurance to a greater public of mystical experiences. Nicephorus warns of the necessity of having an undeluded director, but if, after a search for such a director, one is not found, "after calling upon God in contrition of spirit and with tears, and after praying to Him earnestly with humility, do what I tell you. You are aware that our breathing by which we live is an inhaling and exhaling of air. The organs that serve for this purpose are the lungs which surround the heart. They pass air through themselves and flood the heart with it. Thus breathing is the natural way to the heart. And so collect your mind and conduct it by way of your breathing by which air passes to the heart and together with the inhaled air force it to descend into the heart and to stay there. And train it not to come out of there quickly; for at first this inner enclosure and restraint is very wearisome, but when it becomes accustomed to it, then on the contrary it does not like whirling without, because it is there filled with joy and happiness… And you should also know that when your mind is established in the heart, it must not remain there silent and idle, but must unceasingly make the prayer: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me!' This prayer, by holding the mind without dreaming, renders it inaccessible and immune to the appeals of the enemy and daily leads it more and more into love and longing for God." [11]

It is Gregory of Sinaite who must be credited with having started the Hesychasm Renaissance of the 14th century on Mount Athos. He is known as the teacher of holy sobriety and of the active method of the prayer of mind-in-heart. [12] In his Texts on Commandments and Dogmas we find the traditional, solid teaching of the Sinaite Fathers on asceticism and prayer. But in his Instructio ad Hesychastas [13] he sets down in exact detail instructions on "How to sit in the cell", "How to say the Jesus Prayer", "How to hold the mind", "How to drive away thoughts". We have already quoted his method on how to sit and say the Prayer which shows the evident influence of Nicephor's method.

No doubt the attraction of the unknown with the descriptions of the mystical exaltation contributed much to rapid diffusion of this method. Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantine historian of this period, writes that Athos was infested at this time with the error of Messalianism and Bogomilism. [14] This heretical teaching was strongly developed in Bulgaria and could have been easily, according to Nicephorus Gregoras' account, introduced into Athos by the number of monks who at this time migrated there from Bulgaria. J. Bois, in speaking of Gregory Sinaite's method, says: "We can presume that this method was developed further with great aberrations. Recruits, illiterate persons coming from the hills and Balkan mountains, already filled with extravagant theories of Messalianism and Bogomilianism... each followed his own tastes with changes, not always successful, nor orthodox, leading to great absurdities and extravagances." [15]

Timothy of Constantinople [16] gives a list of Messalian propositions which manifest the leading tendency to be at the same time quietistic and pelagianistic. Its quietism rejects all efficacy to asceticism and combat against passions. The body was delivered from passions through prayer. In the soul was a demon, chased out by prayer and then the Holy Spirit descended with His light, a visible mark of His working presence and assurance that the body was now safely delivered from the demon or from the control of the passions. No longer were mortifications or fasting necessary. The human nature, through prayer, had been transformed into a divine nature. The soul saw the Holy Trinity with corporal eyes. Barlaam of Calabria, [17] in railing against the excesses of hesychasts on Mount Athos shortly after the time of Gregory Sinaite (+1360), accuses the Athos hesychasts of excesses in eating and drinking. Its Pelagianism is evident in the exaggerated efficacy of human prayer, of the psychological and physical elements. Violence was to be exerted on superior faculties, for Messalians believed that they, by their own force and willpower, could reach the heights of contemplations. Receiving mystical experiences soon became synonymous with sanctity. [18]

In his treatise On the Blessed Hesychasts [19] Gregory Palamas (+1359) gives a defence of the method and places it in its true subservient relation with the essence of hesychasm. This would prove to be the canonization of the hesychast spirituality for Orthodoxy, not only as having been always the true, traditional spirituality of the Christian, Byzantine Orient, but as being the only spirituality for future Orthodox generations. Through sobriety, self-mastery, the mind must be held within the body so that the whole can partake of the greatness of the mind. But how can the mind be controlled unless it be collected and confined within the body and not be allowed to be dispersed into multiplicity through the senses. By returning into oneself, man is permitted to ascend to God. [20] "No one who thinks logically would be against those who have not yet attained contemplation, using certain methods to lead the mind into itself… Hence some advise them to refrain from breathing rapidly, but to restrain their breath somewhat, so that, together with their breath, they may also hold the mind inside, until, with God's help, through training, they accustom the mind not to go out into its surroundings and mingle with them, and make it strong enough to concentrate upon one thing." [21]

The Century of Callistus and Ignatius of Kanthopoulos is a collection of the teaching of the traditional "neptic" Fathers on hesychasm. It is a synthesis, the first Philokalia composed, if we wish to view so this work and its solid, ascetical teaching, as the source of reading and learning for succeeding monks. But unduly stressed is the lumen thaboricum, the Taboric light, as the be-all and the end-all of the whole process.

At times it becomes evident that the two authors are joining in the polemics raised by Barlaam and Greek historians and theologians as Nicephorus Gregoras, Gregory Acyndinos, Demetrius and Prochorus Cydonios against the abuses of the method. "It can in no way be achieved solely by this natural method of descent into the heart by way of breathing or by seclusion in a quiet and dimly lit place. This can never be. [22] In Chapter 58 the reader is given a clear break from the traditional hesychast Fathers' teachings to be enlightened as to the details of what we can call Palamitic hesychasm, with its emphasis on the Taboric lumen as the goal of contemplation. [23] It is not without foundation that A. Ammann calls his book on the Century Die Gottesschau im palamitischen Hesychasmus. [24]

With the lack of expert spiritual guides to keep ever the material aids subordinated to the final end of union with God through solid virtues and prayer it is easy to understand that abuses would creep in. This is undoubtedly the reason for the evident moving away since the last century from psycho-physiological techniques. [25] In the 1905 edition of the Dobrotoljubie the Russian editor gives a caution in presenting the "Three Methods of Attention and Prayer" which is attributed to Simeon the New Theologian. "Here St. Simeon describes certain external methods by which some fall into temptation and relinquish their work, and others distort the work itself. Since, owing to scarcity of instructors, these methods may lead to evil effects, while in themselves they are nothing more than external adaptations for inner doing and have no essential value, we omit them. The essential thing is to acquire the habit of making the mind stand on guard in the heart - in this physical heart, but not physically. It is necessary to bring the mind down from the head to the heart and to establish it there or, as one of the Fathers said, to join the mind with the heart. How to attain this? Seek and you will find. The best way is by walking in God's presence and by the work of prayer, especially by going to church. But it should be remembered that ours is only the labour. But the thing itself, i.e. keeping the mind concentrated in the heart, is a supernatural gift, given when and how the Lord wishes. The best example is Maxim Causokalivit." [26]

As for abuses resulting from exaggerated use of a material technique, we need only quote from the warnings of two later witnesses. In the anonymous text quoted by J. Gouillard, [27] a warning of certain physiological, fake consequences coming from an imprudent use of material aids leading to erotic sins of lust is sounded to the followers of this method, along with a denunciation of Islamic fakes and their methods of dhikr [28] and a general lamentation against the general neglect of the hesychast method. "Because of inexperience many suffer and fall into sins instead of acquiring sobriety and attention of the mind", the text says, "through the continuous thought of death and tears of compunction. They fall into the error of false prophets, into the unnatural and unholy operations as taught by the pseudo-Mohammedan monks." [29]

The other later witness to excesses and dangers to avoid is the Russian Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, writing on the Jesus Prayer in 1865. He too laments the almost universal disuse of hesychastic spirituality in Russia, gives a detailed description of the heart, relying on Basil of Moldavia and Theophilact of Philadelphia (example: the power of speech (reason) or spirit of man is present in the breast or in the upper part of the heart; the power of fervour in the middle part; and the power of desire or natural cupidity in the lower part of the heart) and he warns strongly against misuse of the material aids designed to help and not to hinder union with God. "Of those who have used with special diligence the material aids very few have attained success, but very many have deranged and harmed themselves. With an experienced director the use of the material aids incurs little danger; but with the guidance of books it is very dangerous since it is so easy, through ignorance and imprudence to fall into delusion and other kinds of spiritual and bodily disorder. Thus some, on seeing the harmful consequences of indiscreet labour and having only a superficial and confused idea of the prayer of Jesus and the circumstances that accompany it, attributed these consequences not to ignorance and imprudence but to the most holy Prayer of Jesus Himself. Can anything be sadder and more disastrous than this blasphemy, this delusion?" [30]

These two sources above have been quoted to show how easily secondary means to aid prayer can be turned into abuse or an end in itself when wise directors are not available. On the other hand, one must strive to see the good in such a physical help to concentrate the mind in interior prayer. There is no reason why one should not use the good found in natural religions to aid prayer. [31]

But in using a technique, one must always keep in mind that it is a mere, simple preparation, not adequate in itself to attain mystical union with God. [32] As a means, it can be dispensed with or used insofar as it helps; and in general the best Byzantine hesychastic writers always insisted on this. [33] Abuses enter and do great harm to hesychastic spirituality and the Jesus Prayer with its suggested aids when it is demanded of a material technique a quick and sure method of attaining mystical union.

We can evaluate the merit of any technique only in relation to these essential characteristics outlined by Fr. J. Maréchal, [34] that must accompany always true Christian mysticism:

(1) Supernatural grace, because of its ontological character, is inaccessible to direct, human experiences. Here we can readily discern the basic difference between natural and supernatural mysticism. [35] Exteriorly the same manifestations and phenomena may be in evidence, but interiorly there is a radical difference of value and finality. In the supernatural mystical state the human faculties are elevated to a state that makes operations possible, through God's operations, that would, naturally speaking, be impossible. The finality is a prefiguring of the intimate union with God in the beatific vision of the next life and this prefiguring can also be the basis of meriting an increase in the future vision. It must be noted that, in saying grace is not the object of direct sensible experience, it is not denying that grace can and does have sensible, experienced effects.

(2) That God, in a mystical experience, communicates Himself through an immediate intuition, but the communication is made to a "man" and not just to a soul separated. Hence there is a necessity for ascetical preparation to bring the whole "being" to a point of adaptability by persevering and progressive ascesis, recollected prayer, and moral acts. With the increase in intensity of God's self-revelation, there will be an increase in ascesis and prayer and virtuous acts.

(3) All these preparatory acts of ascesis, of self-renouncement, of prayer are prerequisite, necessary conditions for a state of mystical union. But in the ultimate analysis man's best efforts leave him absolutely impotent to reach such a union by his own force. Mystical union with God is a free and gratuitous gift of God, a favour bestowed on man, and whose bestowal cannot ultimately be dictated by a human will, nor be foreseen as bestowed after so long a time of preparation.

In natural mysticism, pantheistic or Buddhistic, ascesis is also considered as necessary, but also as sufficient condition for ecstasy. For Christian mysticism, ascesis is necessary but never sufficient in itself for mystical states.

(4) If true Christian mystical activity is informed by grace and is meant by God to be a superior step to supernatural destiny, negatively it must conform to the whole plan of supernatural salvation. It must be in complete accord with revealed dogma and Christian morals based on the natural law of God and the doctrine of the Gospels.

It is this last characteristic which gives us a norm, even though a negative one, to judge whether a mystic is experiencing purely natural mysticism brought on by physiological factors prepared by intense ascesis and intellectual concentration or whether he is being moved by supernatural grace. "By their fruits shall you know them." If it is God working in this person, He will work in harmony always with His revealed Will. And the mystic will lead a life of virtue according to God's revealed word, especially as Incarnated in the Divine Word, Jesus Christ. And he will accept, preach and live according to the revealed truths as proposed by God to men through the two living founts of Holy Scripture and Tradition.

 

FOOTNOTES

1. Cf. Guillaumont, A., "Le sens du nom de coeur dans l'antiquité", in Études Carmélitaines, 1950, pp. 42-50.

2. Cf. Hausherr, I., S. J., "Noms du Christ", OCA, 157, (Roma, 1960), pp. 202-210. Also Popov, K., "Ucenie o molitve iisusovoj blazennago Diadoxa 5-ogo veka", in Trudy, Eccles. Academy of Kiev (1902), tome 3, pp. 651-676.

3. Diadochus, in Philoka.lia, op. cit., T. I., ch. 25, p. 241.

4. Ibid., ch. 29, pp. 242-243; ch. 30, p. 243.

5. Ibid., ch. 88, p. 265. As to whether Diadochus was the first to use the Jesus Prayer, see I. Hausherr, supra cit., p. 208. Among other things he says: "Diadoque ne donne nulle part, même d'une façon approximative, la formule classique de la prière de Jésus. Il ne la connaît même pas. Sa spiritualité se rattache à celle du "souvenir de Dieu", telle que nous l'avons rencontrée chez saint Basile, saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Marc l'Ermite, etc.; mais plus systématiquement que ces théologiens, Diadoque a tire les conséquences d'un principe qu'il admettainet tous: l'unité spirituelle de l'homme."

6. Ibid., ch. 29, pp. 242-243.

7. Simeon the New Theologian, Dobrotoljubie, op. cit., tome 5, pp. 49-50, no. 136.

8. This will remain one of the unsolved problems. D. Holl, Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen Monchtum (Leipzig, 1898), p. 128, and I. Hausherr, "La Méthode... ", op. cit., maintain that Simeon is not the correct author, but a later author (according to Fr. Hausherr in "Note sur l'invention de la méthode hésychaste", OC, vol. XX, 1930, p. 180), Nicephorus, monk of the 14th century and master of Gregory Palamas, is the author. Hausherr's arguments, besides the manuscript arguments against which M. Jugie levels a dissenting voice (in his "Les origines de la méthode d'oraison hésychaste", Échos d'Orient, vol. 30 (1931), p. 184 and foil.), are: (a) Simeon, whose profound doctrines are based solidly on Holy Scripture especially on the mystical doctrine of St. John and St. Paul, could not have invented a method "short and easy, physical and scientific" without sweat and fatigue to arrive at the same end for which he declared during all his lifetime the utmost necessity of possessing the perfection of all the Christian virtues; (b) about this infallible means to arrive at such a necessary end, he does not breathe a whisper in his other 100 discourses, "hymns of divine love", and more than 200 chapters on practical and theological precepts. Cf. op. cit., "La Méthode...", p. 114.

9. Cf. the text of the three methods of attention and prayer, edited by I. Hausherr, OC, vol. IX (1927), pp. 164-165.

10. Ibid., p. 133; cf. also OC, vol. XX (1930), p. 180.

11. Nicephor, De cordis custodia, PG, 147, 963B-965A. N.B.: Nicephor, according to the data in the Philokalia, died about 1340 and was the master of Gregory Palamas. This is not universally accepted by all. Cf. M. Jugie, "Les Origines de la méthode d'oraison hésychaste", op. cit., p. 184: "Nicephor lived in the 12th century or at the latest in the beginning of the 13th because Gregory Palamas lists him among the ancient Fathers."

12. Cf. Dobrotoljubie, "Introduction to Gregory of Sinaite", tome 5, p. 195.

13. Gregory of Sinaite: Praecepta ad Hesychastes, PG, 150, 1329-1346.

14. Byzantinae Historiae, PG, 147, Lib. XIV, ch. 948B.

15. Bois, J., op. cit., pp. 71-72. Another writing, influenced greatly by Messalian materialization is the pseudo-Chrysostom method which M. Jugie places as written in the 12th century. Cf. op. cit., pp. 184-185. Also I. Hausherr, "Les noms...", pp. 200-202, who treats in detail the spiritual letter to some monks, falsely attributed to Chrysostom.

16. PG, 86, 45C-52C.

17. Syrku, P., K istorii ispravlenija knig v Bolgarii v XIV v. ("Concerning a History of Correction of Books in Bulgaria in the 14th Cent.") (St. Petersburg, 1898), T. I., pp. 95-100.

18. On this point cf. I. Hausherr, "Contemplation et Sainteté...", op. cit., pp. 193-194, and also his thorough treatment on this subject in: "L'erreur fondamentale et la logique du messalianisme", OCP, vol. I (1935), pp. 328-360.

19. PG, 150, 1101 and foll.

20. Ibid., no. 4-5, 1105D-1108A.

21. Ibid., no. 9, 1109C.

22. Century, ch. 24, p. 73. N.B. Page-references are given according to A. Ammann's text, op. cit.

23. "Wir aber reden jetzt von dem vollendeten wesenhaften Augleuchten, in welchem die Auserwählten unter den Aposteln, nämlich die, welche mit Jesus auf den Berg Tabor gestiegen, unaussprechlicherweise die schöne und in Wahrheit selige Entäusserung erlitten haben und gewürdigt wurden mit ihren sinnlichen, zu etwas Göttlicherem verwandelten Augen. - Sie waren ja unter der Rechten des Ganz Heiligen Geistig geworden - die unschaubare Herrlichkeit der Gottheit zu sehen... Die andere aber, nämlich die Betätigung aus der empfangenden Entgegennahme, pfleget unmittelbar von Gott selbst im Herzen zu entstehen, manchmal entsteht sie auch von aussen her and gibt dem Leibe deutlich über die Erkenntnisskraft hinaus Anteil an der eigenen Heiligkeit und dem göttlichen Lichte... 'Denn mit dem einem Auge sehen wir das, was in den Geschöpfen verborgen ist: nämlich die Macht Gottes, seine Weisheit, seine Obsorge für uns, die wir aus der Heiligkeit seiner Mühewaltung um uns erfassen. Mit dem andern Auge schauen wir die Herrlichkeit seines heiligen Wesens, wenn es Gott gefallen wird uns in seine geistlichen Geheimnisse einzuführen' (Hl. Isaak)." Ch. 68, pp. 120-121.

24. But he cautions: "…also in Falle unserer beiden Verfasser palamitisch gesehen und ausgewertet haben ganz anders vielleicht, als es die wirkliche Absicht der angezogenen Schriftsteller war" (p. 22).

25. Un Moine de l'Église d'Orient, "La Prière de Jésus" Chevetogne, 1951, p. 80.

26. Dobrotoljubie, op. cit., tome 5, p. 507.

27. This is from a codex of the 18th or 19th century, but the author believes it must be dated earlier. J. Gouillard, "Petite Philocalie..." op. cit., pp. 300-316.

28. Ibid., pp. 300-310. No one can deny the evident similarity between the physiological and psychological methods of latter hesychasm and Islamic mysticism. Cf. M. L. Gardet, "La mention du nom divin en mystique musulmane", in Revue Thomiste, 1952, pp. 642-646, and the text of the cheikh Muhammad Amin (+1332) as given by J. Gouillard, op. cit., appendix, pp. 317-336. Here we find similar notions on the physiology of the heart, on breathing technique, repetition of a set prayer formula, rapture with blinding light, constant recall of the thought of death and the necessity of having a master to guide one in this method. Swami Siddheswarananda, of the Hindu religious order of Ramakrishna, exposes the Hindu technique of meditation and gives some striking similarities with the hesychast method: the meditation (dhyana ) constituting the principal part of yoga or union with the divine principle, use of breathing-control, posture, entering into the heart, repetition of the Divine name (the mantra), guidance of a guru or spiritual director, purification, union with the Infinite, the realization of the Infinite, samadhi. Cf. "La technique Hindoue de la Méditation", m Études Carmélitaines: Technique et Contemplation (Paris, 1949), pp. 17-35. For this reason Prof. George Wunderle concludes: "On peut vrai semblablement supposer qu'après le grand Siméon le Nouveau Théologien il ya a eu dans sa technique psychologique des infiltrations d'éléments empruntés à l'Extrême-Orient (ou mieux encore au Brahmanisme)." Cf. "La Technique de l'Hésychasme", in Études Carmélitaines : Nuit Mystique (Paris, 1938), p. 62. Cf. also his "Zur Psychologie des hesychastischen Gebets", in the series, Das östliche Christentum, Würzburg, 1949, p. 20.

29. J. Gouillard, "Petite Philocalie... ", op. cit., pp. 305-306.

30. Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, On the Prayer of Jesus (London, 1952), pp. 83-88. Cf. also Besedy o molitve iisusovoj. Cto takoe molitva iisusova po predanijam pravoslavnoj cerkvi (Serdobol', 1938), pp. 405-433.

31. Cf. Poucel, Victor, S. J., "Pour que votre âme respire", in Art Catholique, 1936, p. 13, as quoted by I. Hausherr, "A propos de spiritualité hesychaste: Controverse sans contradicteur", OCP, 1937, vol. III, pp. 271-272.

32. Gardet, Louis: "Recherches sur la 'Mystique Naturelle' ", in Revue Thomiste, no. 1-2 (1948), p. 103.

33. Cf. E. Behr-Sigel, "La prière à Jésus", in Dieu Vivant, no. 8, p. 82.

34. J. Maréchal, S. J., "Études sur la psychologie des mystiques" (Paris, 1937), I, pp. 252-258.

35. Cf. Maritain, Jacques, Quatre essais sur l'esprit dans sa condition charnelle (Paris, 1939), especially ch. III: "L'expérience mystique naturelle et vie", pp. 131-177.


Sunday, August 9, 2026

“Conclusions” on the Western Rite

Source: CUM ILLI GRAECI SINT, NOS LATINI: Western Rite Orthodoxy and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Jack Turner, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, 2010, Chapter 12, pp. 291-298.

 

 

 

The present study began by asking two questions: ‘what, if anything, in Western Rite Orthodoxy is in conflict with Orthodox spirituality’ and ‘at what point of modification does the Western rite cease to be Western’. In the preceding, we have attempted to come to some conclusions about the state of Western Rite Orthodoxy, most specifically the form found in the AWRV [Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate], but we can also draw more general conclusions about the concept of Western Rite Orthodoxy as a whole. Answering these questions, if only tentatively, is really the beginning of longer term possibilities for the study of Western Rite Orthodoxy; thus, in light of the tentative conclusions to the two questions above, a third question begins to emerge: ‘and where should we go from here’.

Can There Really be Truly Orthodox, Truly Western Rite?

Leo Davis makes the observation that the Christological settlement of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (that Christ is fully human and fully divine) was a Western solution to what was essentially an Eastern problem, and it took a while for the East to come to wholeheartedly accept this alien flavour in their theological diet. [1] Due to the way the liturgical and canonical tradition evolved in the East, and how it has been implemented, it certainly seems the same can be said about the Western rite in Orthodoxy. In one sense, Schmemann is correct in stating the opinion that to be Orthodox is to be Byzantine since the Orthodox East knows no other rite than those of Constantinople and thereby has little recourse to other rites as a source of theology. As such, to truly be Orthodox, the rite, whether it be Byzantine or Western, must express Orthodox theology. In the case of the Western rite, that necessarily means that elements which contradict the Eastern understanding of Christianity must be excised, even if they have been in the liturgy from the beginning, even if they are well beloved devotions of the West. We see this most clearly in the liturgies for chrismation and marriage.

By one standard, for the rite to be ‘Western’ it must be as free from alteration, based on whatever intention, as possible. This is why the decision to develop Western Orthodoxy as a ‘safe haven’ from the process of liturgical change in the Western churches, especially The Episcopal Church, is itself fundamentally flawed. Those individuals who came to Orthodoxy via the Western Rite after the 1970’s did so as a means of preserving their cherished liturgical rites from what they considered as heretical meddling, from what they viewed as overthrowing of two millennia of Christian tradition. Fundamentally, as Western Rite Orthodoxy is constituted now, there is a choice between whether the liturgy will be fully Orthodox and thus subject to liturgical amendment without hesitation or reservation, or if the liturgy will be fully Western, resisting as much change as possible, even if such a change is necessary to bring the rite more fully in line with Orthodox theology. To date, Western Rite Orthodox have done so in an uneven and arguably arbitrary manner, and so long as the Western rite construes itself as a ‘resistance movement’ against NOM [Novus Ordo Missae, the contemporary Roman Rite Missal, which is also reflected in modern Anglican liturgical changes as well], breaking out of this false dichotomy will not happen any time soon.

This is not to suggest that it is impossible for there to be an Orthodox Western Rite, only that the models that have been chosen thus far are insufficient to that task. In the first place, it must be admitted that the rite does need correction to make it Orthodox, and these corrections are more than just minor items such as removing the filioque. Indeed, as has been argued already, some of the changes that were made to the Western rite eucharistic liturgy were unnecessary (especially the epiclesis), while other changes that were important were omitted, and other liturgies were modified badly. Secondly, it should also be admitted that the path the AWRV has taken with regards to liturgy is a difficult one to maintain, primarily because Orthodoxy, again to reference Schememann, should not be a haven for individuals to preserve this or that favoured item against encroachment within their former communions. [2] For that matter, this results in a slippery slope since the natural flow of argument has been that the Tridentine forms are more Orthodox than NOM, but the logical conclusion would be than a liturgical use which survived more or less in tact from before 1054 is consequently even closer to Orthodoxy than the Tridentine rite. And there are proponents of the revised Sarum rites who have made precisely this argument. Thus, those who have supported the Tridentine rite against NOM, even if out of love for the rite, may have inadvertently sowed the seeds for its eventual elimination within the Orthodox Church.

There are a great many factors which go into answer thing original question of if the Orthodox Western rite is fully Orthodox or fully Western. Certainly, there are theological problems with the liturgies that are used by the Western Rite Orthodox, and these items should be corrected. As to the matter of if the Orthodox Western Rite remains Western, there is perhaps an opportunity to approach a firmer answer. At the very least, Western Rite Orthodoxy has lost touch with its ‘Westernness’ through directly denouncing the liturgy of the majority of Western Christians as illegitimate. At the present time, it is more akin to a museum piece from the history of Western Christianity and what things might have looked like in the Orthodox Church had reunion taken place before 1964, but it cannot approach what union would look like if it happened tomorrow. The obvious retort is that there is much to be glad about not having kept apace with in the Western Church, most notably the recent controversies over the place of openly homosexual individuals in the hierarchy of the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches, as well as the ordination of women in those same two bodies several decades ago. Yet, correlation is not causation, and there is no evidence that the two strands are essentially linked to a common impulse. For that matter, advocacy for liturgical reform stretches back past Vatican II into the middle part of the nineteenth century. [3] Thus, in a very real way, Western Rite Orthodoxy remains Western, but only an idealized form of the pre-Vatican II West, and not the West as it actually is today or was historically.

The Future of Western Rite Scholarship

Before the present work, the majority of scholarly investigation into the Western Rite had been concerned primarily with consideration of the ordinary of the AWRV liturgy in the SASB [Saint Andrew Service Book], usually in comparison to the liturgies of the ECOF [Orthodox Catholic Church of France]. Schnerlia and Abramtsov’s histories were hopelessly out of date since both were printed before the AWRV became a functional reality. Furthermore, it is at least important to mention should a recently published review of the most significant secondary literature on the Western rite. [4] In looking through the literature, we can see that most of what has been written to this point is primarily an argument between pro- and anti-Western rite factions as to the validity or desirability of Western rites in general and the orthodoxy of the SASB specifically in more recent works. But, the near exclusive emphasis on the eucharistic liturgy leaves one to the potential conclusion that there is nothing to the Western rite other than GRE [‘Rite of Saint Gregory’] and TIK [‘Rite of Saint Tikhon’], and that other Western liturgies are not worth studying or even fighting over. Even in instances where attempt have been made to broaden the discussion, and here I am thinking specifically of Smith’s article, the attempt has only been feeble, exclusively negative with regards to the AWRV, and highly transitory. On the subject of liturgical studies, while I have criticized individuals such as Andersen who place what is, in my opinion, an unnecessary emphasis on TOM [The Orthodox Missal] as the exclusive expression of Western rite liturgy within the AWRV, I can also say that critics like Woolfenden and Smith are mistaken in their exclusive reliance on the SASB; both documents must be taken inconsideration together.

The present work rectifies the previously deficient state of scholarship in a number of ways. First, the rites themselves are actually studied for what they say, rather than simply described for the unaware, as if such a methodology produced results which were self-explanatory. While the problems noted in the eucharistic liturgies were limited only to a few salient points, such as the elevation or eucharistic bread types, it has gone beyond the scope of previous efforts, aided in no small part to the amount of space which could be dedicated to the subject. Secondly, the discussion is extended beyond the eucharistic liturgy and into the other liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy. Though this development is positive, it must simultaneously be recognized that there is still significant progress that could be made, especially on what are sometimes identified as ‘para-liturgical’ devotions.

Secondly, the historical section is as comprehensive as one is able to make it in the space that is available for a dissertation which primarily focuses on theology and liturgy. In some instances, it is difficult to expand on the work of Schneirla or Abramtsov because their works are foundational to any comprehensive history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, but also because they provide information which does not exist in any extant form that is easily obtainable. By way of example, Abramtsov is the only source for information on the Polish Orthodox National Church that can be found. Furthermore, because of the passage of time, closing the gaps between the death of Alexander Turner and the start of the current century will be exceptionally difficult as many of the important figures during this period have already died. While Schneirla, due to his exceptionally long tenure as the AWRV’s Vicar-General and his vast experience with Western Rite Orthodoxy, remains a valuable source for the history of the AWRV this is still not the same as having the personal account of the principal individuals involved or accurate files. Most of the documentation covering the ECOF is still in French and as a result leaves this aspect of Western rite history closed to many English speaking students of the Western rite. Even so, the ECOF has taken the lead in telling its own story, providing a number of monographs on the subject and these items will need to be included in any future comprehensive history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, and it would be encouraging for the AWRV to follow that example.

Third, the present work takes account of the practical problems that Western Rite Orthodoxy presents to Orthodox ecclesiology and to Orthodoxy’s attempts at rapprochement with the Roman Catholic and other Protestant Churches as currently constituted in the AWRV. Here again, most previous studies which are critical of the Western rite are critical of the rite itself. Where I have chosen to be critical, I am critical not only of the liturgy, though the criticisms I express are very different from those of Stratman or Smith, but also of what Western Rite Orthodoxy can be said to represent: an uncritical adoption of the Western rite with and incomplete understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology and what makes the Western rite specifically Western. It is my assertion that most of the apologists for the Western rite have misplaced their emphases in a desperate attempt to avoid liturgical change while still ‘remain’ within an historic Church. This different critical perspective advances the study of the Western rite forward and points out that there is more implied by Western Rite Orthodoxy than just the celebration of a different ritual form.

Nevertheless, there is still significant room for growth in the study of the Western rite even beyond the current study. Some potential avenues of research involve expanding the scope of the present work, while others would mean going in an entirely different direction. The first area for further consideration would be the history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, and not simply the history of the Orthodox Church of France or the AWRV, no matter how important each of these might individually be. Rather, the recent emergence of the Western Rite has been placed in its proper historical context, both in terms of East-West relations more generally and the interplay between eastern and western liturgical customs more specifically. While there are a number of good, independent histories of eastern and western tensions, the liturgical tensions are often mentioned only in a passing manner. However, liturgy and liturgical customs are at the heart of the Western Rite and so deserve central attention in any consideration of the history of Western Rite Orthodoxy. More importantly, the history has been considered in a dispassionate manner, with no particular agenda pushed in regards to the rightness or truthfulness of the position of one side or the other, that is, Greek or Latin or Anglican. In this regard, the history in Chapters 2 and 3 are an attempt to grasp the facts and provide meaning rather than the more philosophical ‘quest for truth’ which often results in an attempt to press a polemical agenda and which has been characteristic of most Western rite histories written by ‘armature’ historians over the past half century; in that regard, regardless of how limited, the current work is a definite step forward. Still, there is significant work that can still be done, particularly in reconstructing the history of the various parishes that utilize the Western rite, even if one limits their focus exclusively to North America. There are a number of parishes that simply disappeared, some have changed to the Byzantine rite, and some have left the Antiochians or ROCOR for other quarter. Even among those parishes that can be identified as Western rite, a significant amount of detail as to their founding and history remains un-written. Simultaneously, the individual memoirs of AWRV pioneers, at least those who remain alive, should be committed to writing while such a task can still be undertaken.

Secondly, a deeper study of the liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy must be undertaken; it is not sufficient to continue to debate the Orthodoxy of the eucharistic rites in general form any longer. That is not to say that salient points cannot or should not be treated in an in-depth manner, but that generalized discussions of GRE and TIK should not be favoured over the same treatment of other liturgies in the Western rite, such as the so-called ‘para-liturgical’ devotions, and the Western rite in the ROCOR. Furthermore, there is still a significant portion of work which could be done with the variable portions of the liturgy; this is particularly true for festal liturgies which not only have their own proper texts but have their own unique structures. The Triduum and the Paschal Vigil are the best example of these types of proper liturgies, and both have been mentioned in the present study though only briefly.

Third, it would be beneficial to move the study of the Western Rite liturgy away from exclusive focus on the AWRV and to include the liturgies of the French Church, the ROCOR, Holy Synod of Milan, and many of the more important autogenic Western rite churches. Some limited attempts have been made in this direction by Smyth, but his treatment leaves much to be desired in terms of systematic exposition. The course of this sort of study could take a variety of different directions, including direct textual comparisons or individualized treatment followed by extended critique of a Western rite on its own merits. There is certainly nothing limiting scholarly creativity at this point, and it is a substantial undertaking that would require an extensive commitment of time and resources depending on how far into the variable parts of the rite the individual wished to probe.

Finally, if the study of the Western rite is to be undertaken with any sort of seriousness by academics, access to available literature needs to be increased greatly. A comprehensive collection of texts related to Western Rite Orthodoxy within a single library with generous inter-library lending policies seems to be the most desirable solution. However, for this to work out, individuals in possession of documents and literature of value to the study of the movement would need to be donated to a single library as a part of a coordinated effort. It is unfortunate, but likely true, that no single library would be interested enough at this time to acquire the necessary works of its own initiative or out of its own funding. Here again, private individuals with an interest in promoting the study of Western Rite Orthodoxy would need to provide any partner library in question with donated books or targeted contributions. The question of which library would be most conducive to the program is one that needs to be considered. The libraries of the Orthodox seminaries, specifically Holy Cross and St Vladimir’s, are obvious choices. Less obvious are those institutions which already include significant portions of The Basilian and Orthodoxy in their collections who would be willing to circulate them through inter-library lending, as these journals are central to the history of the Western Rite in North America and new copies of which are unlikely to ever be found in private hands for donation.

The reception of new work on the Western rite demonstrates that there is a potential interest for further studies of this type, both within the Orthodoxy and within the broader scholarly community. Future progress will be dictated to some degree by availability and access to materials, but to a greater degree by individuals willing to commit significant time and energy towards the study of the matter. While this author is sufficiently interested to continue the necessary work based on the plans outlined already, there is enough potential work to sustain an entire career in academia. It would certainly be better if a larger number of individuals within the academic community, especially those from a Byzantine rite background, would make study of the subject matter, no matter how limited or brief.

 

NOTES

1. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 207.

2. Schmemann, ‘Some Reflections Upon “A Case Study’”, SVTQ 24.4 (1980) 268.

3. See Chapter 4 above.

4. Cf. J. Turner, ‘The Road Thus Far’, SVTQ 53.4 (2009) 477-505.

To Archbishop Paul of Sydney: Question from Russia About Grace

  Your Eminence! I accidentally found your address and decided to write, although I understand that I am taking up your precious tim...