Various Russian Monastic Prayer Rules

The Rule of Florishcheva Hermitage

 

 

In Florishcheva Hermitage, founded in the seventeenth century in Vladimir Governorate by Saint Hilarion, Metropolitan of Suzdal, the following rule was introduced by him, divided according to time into three parts. At Compline the canons to Jesus the Sweetest, to the Mother of God, and to the Guardian Angel were read, as well as the Akathist to the Mother of God. After some time the brethren performed the rule in church. In addition to the seven brief prayers read at the beginning of the rule according to the Psalter, the Saint introduced invocations to various saints and to whole ranks of saints, as well as seven prayers composed by the holy fathers. Then 300 prostrations, 600 Jesus Prayers, and 100 prayers to the Theotokos were performed (which corresponds to the rule in the Psalter) according to the following order: the exclamation, the usual beginning through the “Our Father,” Psalm 50, the Symbol of Faith, 30 full prostrations with the Jesus Prayer (all the brethren together), after which, standing, they read 70 Jesus Prayers in a whisper or with the mind, “Glory, both now,” Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia, “Glory to Thee, O God” (three times, with full prostrations), and again they made 30 full prostrations, and so on, with the reading of “Glory, both now” after each hundred prayers (or hundred. A hundred is 100 noetic prayers performed on the prayer rope.) Then they read the Commemoration Book with prostrations according to the Psalter, “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion, the troparia “Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us,” “Lord, have mercy” (40 times), “More honorable,” “O God, be bountiful unto us,” and the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian, “O Lord and Master of my life,” with full prostrations, “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (three times, with prostrations), “More honorable,” and the dismissal. Then came the usual mutual forgiveness of the brethren. After this, in their cells, the brethren read the Psalter. The beginners read 3 kathismas, those in the middle rank 4 kathismas, and the perfect 7 kathismas. Those who could not fulfill this were to read the “Our Father” in their cell 30 and 50 times with prostrations, or more. In addition, they read “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” with prostrations (the beginners 50 times, those in the middle rank 100 times, and the perfect 150 and more). For the infirm and the young, this cell rule was abolished. Subsequently the rule of Florishcheva Hermitage was borrowed by the Sarov monastery, but in a somewhat abbreviated form. From Sarov Hermitage the cell rule passed to the Novgorod Yuriev Monastery, with the beginning and end of the rule shortened, but with the canons at Compline increased, with the addition of canons to the saints of the week. In different monasteries, the hundreds of noetic prayers were performed in different numbers and at different times of the day: in the morning after sleep, in the evening after supper, or at midnight. The variety in the performance of the cell rule arose because the rule given in the Psalter is difficult for many to fulfill, and is set forth briefly and indefinitely, which gave occasion for different understandings and interpretations. In the Psalter it is indicated that the full rule is not obligatory for all and is shortened for the infirm and beginners. In monasteries, much with regard to the cell rule was left to the will of the abbots, spiritual fathers, and elders guiding the beginners. Therefore, differences in the cell rules of monasteries are permissible.

 

The Rule of the Sarov and Novgorod Yuriev Monasteries

 

 

According to the Sarov rule: after Compline, without leaving the church, the brethren listened to the evening rule with three canons: to Jesus the Sweetest, to the Most Holy Theotokos with the Akathist, and to the Guardian Angel. According to the Yuriev rule: at the end of Compline it is appointed to perform certain canons (in the Psalter with the Order of Services), namely: on Saturday evening, the canon to the Lord Jesus Christ, whose irmos is: “Helper and Protector”; the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, and the canon to the Guardian Angel. Then “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion through the “Our Father,” the customary troparia and the prayer: “O undefiled, untainted one,” “And grant us, O Master,” and the dismissal (hundreds were not appointed on the eve of Sunday). On the other days: on Sunday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, whose irmos is: “Having passed through the water”; and the troparion: “Held fast by many temptations”; the canon to the Archangels, and then the prostrations (that is, the five hundreds, as shown below), and the rest*. On Monday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, the canons to Saint John the Forerunner and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Tuesday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus Christ, the canon to the Theotokos Hodegetria and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Wednesday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, to the holy Apostles, and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Thursday evening, the canon to the Life-giving Cross, whose irmos is: “I shall open my mouth,” the Paraklesis to the Theotokos and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Friday evening, the canon to Jesus the Sweetest, whose irmos is: “In the deep of old”; the Akathist to the Theotokos without fail, the canons to the Guardian Angel and to All Saints, the prostrations, and the rest.

The Five-Hundred Cell Rule

O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

O God, cleanse my sins and have mercy on me.

O Lord Who hast created me, have mercy.

Without number have I sinned, O Lord, forgive me.

O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner.

Holy Archangels and Angels and all Saints, pray to God for me, a sinner.

My holy Guardian Angel, preserve me from every evil.

Holy Apostle, or venerable father, or martyr (name), pray to God for me.

Then the hieromonk said the exclamation: “Blessed is our God,” and the reader: “Amen. Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.” “O Heavenly King.” The Trisagion through the “Our Father,” “Lord, have mercy,” 12 times. “Glory, both now.” “Come, let us worship” (three times). Psalm 50. “Have mercy on me, O God.” “I believe in One God.” Then, according to the Sarov rule, the reader (according to the Yuriev rule—the abbot), standing in the middle of the church, began to make 30 full prostrations. Having said aloud the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” he made a prostration, and with him all the brethren. Each one read the same prayer with the mind and made the prostrations together with all. The prayer with prostrations was performed unhurriedly and in good order. Each monk first pronounced the prayer, then made the prostration. When the 30 prostrations with the prayer had been completed, after a brief pause, the one presiding pronounced aloud three times the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; then each one repeated the same prayer in the mind one hundred times. Then the one presiding exclaimed: “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia, glory to Thee, O God” (three times). “Lord, have mercy” (three times). “Glory, both now.” And again he said the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and again made 30 prostrations, and then they performed 100 Jesus Prayers. Then—“Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest. Then again the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and with it they made 20 prostrations, and again read 100 prayers (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”), “Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest; then they read the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and with it made 20 prostrations. After this they read aloud the prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, three times: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner,” then in the mind they performed the same prayer one hundred times. “Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest; then they pronounced the prayer aloud: “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (according to Sarov, five times with prostrations; according to Yuriev, once). According to the rule of Florishcheva Hermitage, after the prostrations and noetic prayers they read the Commemoration Book according to the Psalter, with full prostrations. In the Yuriev rule there is no mention of reading the Commemoration Book. After “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” the two choirs together sang sweetly “It is truly meet” and made a prostration. Then—the Trisagion through the “Our Father.” The appointed troparia of the canons (according to Sarov and Florishcheva: “Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us”). Then, according to Yuriev, the prayer: “Those who hate us and wrong us” (instead of the Commemoration Book), and 16 prostrations with the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian: “O Lord and Master of my life.” “Glory to Thee, O Christ God, our hope, glory to Thee,” and the dismissal. Then—the usual mutual forgiveness of the abbot and the brethren. According to Florishcheva, after “Open unto us the doors of mercy”—“Lord, have mercy” 40 times, “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “O God, be bountiful unto us,” and the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian: “O Lord and Master of my life,” with full prostrations. “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (three times) with full prostrations. “More honorable than the Cherubim,” the dismissal, and the mutual forgiveness of the brethren. According to Sarov, after the fivefold “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” there was a reading from the book of Saint Ephraim the Syrian, then: “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion through the “Our Father.” The troparia: “Have mercy on us, O Lord,” and the rest. “Lord, have mercy” 40 times. The prayers: “Thou Who at all times and at every hour...,” “Lord, have mercy” (three times), “Glory, both now,” “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “In the name of the Lord, bless, father,” “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “O undefiled, untainted one,” “And grant us, O Master, as we go to sleep.” Then they read the Commemoration Book according to the Psalter. Then, from the prayers before sleep—the prayer of Saint Macarius the Great to God the Father: “O Eternal God and King of all creation,” the prayer of Saint Antiochus to the Lord Jesus Christ: “O Almighty Word of the Father.” The prayer to the Holy Spirit: “O Lord, Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, have compassion.” The prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos: “O good Mother of the good King.” The prayer to the Guardian Angel: “Angel of Christ, my holy guardian.” “To thee, the Champion Leader,” and the rest. “Most glorious Ever-Virgin, Mother of Christ our God,” and the rest, the prayer of Saint Joannicius: “My hope is the Father.” Finally the one presiding made the small dismissal and pronounced the litany. Then—the mutual forgiveness of the brethren. (Nothing is said about the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian.)

 

The Optina Cell Rule

 

 

In addition to the church services—the Liturgy, Matins, and Vespers with Compline, at which all the brethren of the monastery were required to be present—many of them daily read in their cell one chapter from the Gospel in sequence, beginning with the first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew and continuing to the last chapter of the Gospel according to John, and two chapters from the Apostle likewise in sequence, beginning with the Acts of the Holy Apostles and ending with the last chapter of the Apocalypse of John the Theologian; moreover, the last seven chapters of the Apocalypse were read one per day; then the last of them was read on the same day as the last chapter of the Gospel according to John. Having thus completed the reading of the entire New Testament, they began again from the first chapters a new cycle of reading. From the Psalter they read one kathisma per day, beginning with the first and continuing through the last inclusively. In addition, they performed the so-called five-hundred cell rule in the following order: After the three prostrations usually appointed at the beginning of every prayer rule in church and in the cell, with the prayers: “O God, be merciful to me, a sinner”; “O God, cleanse my sins and have mercy on me”; “O Lord Who hast created me, have mercy! Without number have I sinned, O Lord, forgive me.” In the cell a fourth prostration was also appointed, with the prayer: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner”3. Then followed the usual beginning: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us.” “Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.” “O Heavenly King” and the rest (as shown in the Sarov rule) up to “I believe in One God.” After this they read 100 prayers: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” At the first 10 prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next 20 prayers—one bow from the waist at each; at the last, that is, the hundredth, prayer—a full prostration. Then came the prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, appointed at the end of the morning prayers and beginning with the words: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos.” At the end of this prayer they made a full prostration4. Then they again performed 100 Jesus Prayers in the indicated order, with 10 full prostrations and 20 bows from the waist, and at the last Jesus Prayer—a full prostration, and again the same prayer: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. The third hundred was performed in the same way as the first and the second. The fourth hundred of prayers was addressed to the Most Holy Theotokos: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos, save me, a sinner”5. Of this hundred, the first ten prayers were likewise performed with full prostrations, and the next 20 with bows from the waist, the remaining 69 without prostrations. The last, hundredth, prayer was with a full prostration, and after it, likewise with a full prostration, the prayer: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos.” Then 50 prayers: “Holy Angel of God, my Guardian, pray to God for me, a sinner”; at the first five prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next ten—one bow from the waist at each; and the remaining 35 prayers without prostrations, only at the last—a full prostration, and again the prayer was read: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. After this, 50 prayers: “All Saints, pray to God for me, a sinner.” At the first five prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next ten—one bow from the waist at each; the last prayer again with a full prostration, after which there was again read: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. Then: “It is truly meet” and a full prostration. “Glory to Thee, O Christ God,” and the dismissal: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us. Amen.” On weekdays they performed all the above-mentioned prostrations. On the days of Pentecost, of polyeleos feasts, of forefeasts and afterfeasts, on days when the Great Doxology is sung at Matins and full prostrations are abolished in church prayer, they were abolished also in the cell rule and replaced by bows from the waist. Likewise, only bows from the waist were always performed on those days when an All-Night Vigil was appointed to be served. In the last two days of Passion Week, throughout all of Bright Week, and beginning from December 24 to January 7 (Old Style), this cell rule was set aside, and also on Sundays, even if an All-Night Vigil was not served. Any change in the composition of this cell rule, whether its reduction or increase, was left to the will and blessing of the elder or spiritual father.

 

The Cell Rule of the Holy Trinity Sergius Riga Monastery

 

 

A chapter of the Gospel and of the Apostle; the canon to Jesus Christ and to the Most Holy Theotokos; the Akathist to the Savior or to the Mother of God, and the canon to the Guardian Angel; three kathismas and five hundreds of prayers on the prayer rope. The beginning of the rule is according to the Psalter with the Order of Services. The beginning of the hundreds: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “Glory to Thee, our God,” and the rest (as before the Sarov and Yuriev rule). After “I believe in One God”—the first hundred: 30 full prostrations with the prayer “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; 70 noetic prayers, standing, without prostrations (for rest), with the same prayer. “Glory, both now.” “Alleluia” (three times). “Lord, have mercy” (three times). “Glory, both now.” “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos, by Thy holy and all-powerful supplications...” “Amen.” “More honorable than the Cherubim...”8. The beginning of the second hundred: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers.” “Glory to Thee, our God,” through the “Our Father,” and the second hundred: 30 full prostrations with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; 79 noetic prayers, standing, without prostrations for rest, with the same prayer. “Glory, both now,” and the rest. “More honorable than the Cherubim,” as after the first hundred. The third hundred is read in the same way as the second. The beginning of the fourth hundred: “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” and 30 full prostrations with the prayer “Most Holy Lady, Virgin Theotokos, save me, a sinner”; 70 noetic prayers of the same kind. The fifth hundred: 15 full prostrations with the prayer: “All ye heavenly ranks, Archangels and Angels, pray to God for me, a sinner,” and 35 noetic prayers of the same kind. 15 full prostrations with the prayer: “My holy Guardian Angel, preserve me from every evil and pray to God for me, a sinner”; 35 noetic prayers of the same kind. “It is truly meet,” “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “Glory, both now,” “Lord, have mercy” (three times), “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us.” For the acquisition of benefit for the soul and so as not to damage health, it was advised: at midnight to perform the first hundred alone, then to go to Matins; to perform the second hundred after Matins, and the last three in the evening, before sleep, or however one wishes. On the eves of Sundays and great feasts, from the Nativity of Christ until Theophany and from Palm Week until the Sunday of the Apostle Thomas, the rule was completely set aside, and on the days of polyeleos feasts and on Saturdays it was performed without full prostrations. The Commemoration Book was read at one’s discretion. If there was no time, it was replaced by the prayer: “Those who hate us and wrong us.” Without omission, daily, when going to sleep, the confession of sins was read: “I confess to Thee, the Lord my God and Creator, One in the Holy Trinity.” Then they read the prayers before sleep.

 

The Rule of the Seraphim-Diveyevo Women’s Monastery

 

 

Finding the rule of the Sarov monks beyond their strength and difficult, Saint Seraphim gave a daily rule taught to him by the Theotokos. Upon rising in the morning, one was to read: once “It is truly meet,” three times the “Our Father,” three times “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” the Symbol of Faith, then two bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” a bow from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners”; after this, two bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, through the Lady Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, have mercy on me, a sinner,” and likewise a bow from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, through the Lady Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, have mercy on us sinners.” At the conclusion of this rule, standing on bended knee, one must make twelve bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us sinners,” and in exactly the same way twelve bows from the waist with the prayer: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us sinners.” Then the morning prayers are to be read. For those who labor, this rule may be read even while walking, during work. Until dinner one must constantly read the Jesus Prayer inwardly, and after dinner until night: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us.” The evening rule: to read the 12 selected psalms (typical psalms) of the desert fathers, then the Commemoration Book, an instruction, and to make 100 bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners,” and one hundred bows from the waist with the prayer: “O our Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us sinners.” Then the morning rule is to be repeated. At night they must again read this same rule and the prayers before sleep. The Mother of God forbade Father Seraphim to make the reading of the Akathist obligatory, so as thereby not to lay a burden and an additional sin upon anyone’s soul. On Sunday Father Seraphim gave the commandment to serve (in Diveyevo) before the Liturgy, without omission, the Paraklesis to the Mother of God, all of it sung melodiously, according to the musical notation. Then Father Seraphim ordered that, without omission, they confess and commune during all the fasts and, in addition, on the Twelve Great Feasts, without tormenting oneself with the thought that one is unworthy, “since one should not miss the opportunity, whenever possible, to make more frequent use of the grace bestowed by communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Striving, as far as possible, to concentrate oneself in the humble consciousness of one’s own entire sinfulness, with hope and firm faith in God’s ineffable mercy, one should approach the Holy Mystery that redeems all things and all men.

 

Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/molitva/inocheskoe-kelejnoe-pravilo/

“Autocephalous Church” or “Autocephalous Ecclesiology”?

Nikolaos Mannis | July 1, 2019

 

 

After the recent (January 2019) practical proclamation of the heresy of Neo-Papism by the Patriarch of Constantinople, [1] His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios unfortunately appeared as an advocate of the Phanar.

With the present text I would like to take a position on the text of His Eminence Hierotheos, the latest in chronological order in his series of articles in favor of the Phanariots, entitled “The Term ‘Autocephalous Church.’” [2]

Unfortunately, in this text His Eminence comes into conflict chiefly with himself. For while he very correctly develops (throughout the whole of chapter 1 and in the first half of chapter 5) the Orthodox ecclesiology concerning the Head of the Church (Christ alone), he then contradicts himself (in the rest of chapter 5, as well as in chapters 6 and 7), as we shall see in detail, by regarding the “First” as Head, regardless of the fact that, theoretically, he rejects this.

His Eminence writes: “The Ecumenical Patriarch, as the First-Throne, has certain duties, which in practice all the Orthodox Churches have recognized for him. Among these is that he presided at the Second Ecumenical Council and at the subsequent Ecumenical Councils.” This, however, is not entirely accurate! For:

• The first president of the Second Ecumenical Council was Saint Meletios of Antioch. And only after his repose was the Archbishop of Constantinople, Saint Gregory the Theologian, elected president. [3]

• At the Third Ecumenical Council, Nestorios of Constantinople not only did not preside, but was the accused party. This Council (which in fact deposed Nestorios) was presided over by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. [4]

• At the Fourth Ecumenical Council, those presiding were the legates of Pope Leo of Rome. [5]

• At the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which anathematized, among others, four successive Patriarchs of Constantinople!), the representatives of the Pope of Rome again held the presidency. [6]

• The only Ecumenical Councils, therefore, after the Second, at which the Patriarch of Constantinople presided were the Fifth (Saint Eutychios) and the Seventh (Saint Tarasios).

His Eminence continues, writing that the Patriarch of Constantinople “granted not only the Tomoi of Autocephaly, but also the Patriarchal ranks and honors, to all the newer Churches, from the Church of Russia up to today.”

But neither is this entirely accurate. It is known from ecclesiastical history that in 1589 Patriarch Jeremias II Tranos of Constantinople uncanonically granted the patriarchal rank to the Church of Russia, giving it the third place, and appointed the Metropolitan of Moscow, Job, as Patriarch. [7] But it is known that many enlightened Hierarchs reacted against this arbitrary act, such as Hierotheos of Monemvasia and Saint Meletios Pegas, who knew that according to Orthodox ecclesiology only the Ecumenical Council grants Patriarchal ranks and honors. Hierotheos of Monemvasia was the first to react and “says privately to the patriarch, my master, this cannot be done, because Constantine the Great made the patriarchates with an ecumenical council; and Justinian the Great, with the Fifth Ecumenical Council, made Achrida an archbishopric, and Jerusalem, on account of the precious Passion of Christ, a patriarchate.” [8] Patriarch Jeremias, in his attempt to secure his arbitrary act, convened an Endemousa Synod in May 1590 in Constantinople, which granted the Patriarchal Tomos to the Church of Russia, assigning it the fifth place, and in which the Patriarchs Joachim of Antioch and Sophronios of Jerusalem also participated, along with another eighty-one Bishops! [9] Nevertheless, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Saint Meletios Pegas, who was also described as “the new Photios after the schism,” [10] reacted and demanded the convocation of an Ecumenical Council. And in his letter to Jeremias of Constantinople in 1591, he writes the following weighty words, which constitute a thunderbolt against the positions of His Eminence of Nafpaktos and every other defender of the Phanariot arbitrariness of our time:

“I know, besides, that you were grieved over the elevation of the Metropolis of Moscow to a Patriarchate; for it does not escape your notice that this belongs not to one Patriarch (unless the New Rome has decided to follow the Old), but to a Synod, and an Ecumenical Synod, of the Orthodox, that is; for in this way the Patriarchates up to today were also established. Therefore, your sacred soul ought also to have taken together the vote of the rest of the brethren, for all must know, as the Fathers define at the Third Council, what is being done, because the consideration concerns a common matter. And it is clear that no Patriarchal throne is subject to another, but is joined to the Catholic Church.” [11]

(Additional note: a Pan-Orthodox Synod was finally held in 1593 and conferred the patriarchal rank upon the Church of Russia, assigning it the fifth place).

Therefore, in all the subsequent newer Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches, the Patriarchal ranks and honors, and the autocephalies, were granted by economy and, as His Eminence also admits, “stand in reference (ad referendum) to the Ecumenical Council.” [12] Therefore, since according to exactness they have not been recognized, there exist no “exceptional privileges and duties” of the Patriarch of Constantinople!

Below, His Eminence also advances other positions that overturn what he wrote at the beginning, adopting an “autocephalous” (=independent) ecclesiology, which unfortunately attempts to establish what is called the “Neo-Papism of Constantinople.” He wonders: “…to whom do the Primates of the Churches refer? Should they not refer to the Synaxis-Synod of the Primates, with the Ecumenical as First? Otherwise, is autocephaly perhaps interpreted as ‘autocephalarchy’?”

But the answer to these questions we shall not seek elsewhere, but in his own text itself, a few pages above:

“Professor Ioannis Karmiris writes: ‘But while in the East the pentarchy of the Patriarchs prevailed canonically, and through it the episcopal-synodal – democratic – decentralizing system of administration, on the contrary in the West the papal – monarchical – absolutist – centralizing system of administration was gradually imposed by the bishops of Rome, the ecclesiastical polity that had been in force from the beginning thus being overturned. Thus, gradually and little by little, a differentiation was completed in the polity of the two parts of the Church, that is, of the eastern and the western.’”

Pentarchy, then; and when the Ecumenical Council recognizes according to exactness the Patriarchal ranks and honors, and the autocephalies, then why not also a Decarchy or a Decatetrarchy? Why the derogatory term “autocephalarchy,” since this has always been the system by which the Orthodox Church is governed, and in which no partial head surpasses another, precisely in order to avert phenomena such as the Papism of Rome, or the Neo-Papism of Constantinople today. His Eminence himself wrote these things a short time ago:

“Saint Theodore the Studite considered that the five Patriarchs constituted ‘the five-peaked dominion of the Church’ or ‘the five-peaked body of the Church’ or the ‘five-peaked ecclesiastical body.’ Theodore Balsamon parallels the existence of the Pentarchy with the five senses in the body of Christ.” [13]

So where is the problem? In the number “five”?

And His Eminence continues: “And does the Synod-Synaxis of the Primates not have a head, does it not have a First? Is the Orthodox Church headless in a Protestant manner?”

But he had again answered himself:

“First of all, it must be emphasized that the head of the Church, and I mean of the Orthodox Church, is Christ… The head of the Church is Christ. He fits together and joins the whole body of the Church, and each member of the Church, according to the gift he possesses, contributes to the growth of the body and to its edification in love… Christ is the head of the Church. The local presidents are regarded as heads in the type and place of Christ, and not as His representatives and vicars.”

Are the above “Protestantism”?

Besides, the only Primacy that the Church of Christ recognizes is the entirely formal Primacy of honor, which consists, according to Makarios of Ancyra, in “presiding, occupying the first seat, speaking first, giving an opinion first, signing first in synodal assemblies and acts, and furthermore, having his name pronounced in the Diptychs.” [14] Behold, then, what sort of “exceptional privileges” the “First” has: to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, to sit in the first place, to speak and give an opinion first, to place his signature first, and to have his name pronounced first in the Diptychs! That is, it has no relation whatsoever to the “privileges” that the Neo-Papists and their advocates want to recognize for him.

Further on, His Eminence makes proposals for the abolition of the traditional commemoration of the Primates “for every Orthodox bishop” and its replacement by the commemoration of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the other Primates, who in this way will be transformed into a universal First (according to the papal model!), proposals that clearly teach an “autocephalous” ecclesiology of the Monarchy of the Phanar, instead of the Orthodox ecclesiology of the relative polyarchy of the partial heads-bishops under the Absolute Monarchy of the general Head, Who is Christ alone!

At this point it must be emphasized that these positions of His Eminence are not supported by the Fathers of the Church. On the contrary, the patristic positions are precisely the opposite, and nowhere do they speak of any “universal first” and “head of the other primates.” Saint Meletios Pegas characteristically writes:

“The individual churches, and the heads of the churches, all coming together into one wholeness [sic] of the catholic Church, constitute one body, whose head is Christ alone! Therefore, the catholic Church is not a monster, having Christ as one catholic Head. For the partial heads [15] of the catholic Church do not impair the meaning, but fulfill it in each particular case; just as neither do the partial churches impair the meaning of the one catholic Church.” [16]

And Maximos the Peloponnesian more analytically:

“And all are heads, all teachers, all ecumenical shepherds of the Church, and they have Christ as their universal head, upon Whom they too are founded, together with the whole Church; all are servants and preachers of the Gospel of Christ, to which they bring the other faithful also. Although they are heads, nevertheless they are not such heads as to give life from themselves to the members. For only Christ does this, as He is Life itself and the Giver of life… And whoever is separated from Him, [17] even these shepherds, and even the Apostles [sic], cannot live. Therefore, they too are called heads, but partial ones, and not catholicly.” [18]

The positions, then, concerning a universal “First” with “exceptional privileges and duties” (and despite the theoretical admission only that Christ is the Head of the Church) are far removed from the Orthodox positions! I am curious as to whether the devotees of Neo-Papism could manage to compile a list of “universal firsts” in the Church from Pentecost until today, so that we may see to what extent their positions can stand… And I also address a question personally to His Eminence: Who was the “First” after Pentecost, Your Eminence? Peter or Paul?

And the worst thing is that such views lead to even more anti-Orthodox positions, confirming the saying “one evil is followed by countless others.” For His Eminence reaches the point of expressing the position that “when a Local Church ceases the commemoration in the Diptychs of the First, then it is already in schism, it creates an independent head.” But in what way is the one who ceases the commemoration of the “First” in schism, that is, outside the Church, and creating an “independent” head, since Christ, and not the “First,” is the Head of the Church? One could claim that this happens because the Church is renounced and Christ is rejected in the person of the “First.” But perhaps this applies only in the case where the “First” is a faithful keeper of the Orthodox Faith and of the Traditions and Canons, and those who cease commemorating him are fallen concerning the faith?

This is probably not something His Eminence seems to share, because he considers as schism even merely the fact itself of a Primate, together with his Synod, cutting himself off from the “First” and ceasing Eucharistic communion with him, overlooking both the fact that the Sacred Canons do not always regard this cessation as a condemnable schism, but sometimes as a praiseworthy act—namely, when the “First” preaches a condemned heresy “publicly and with bare head” [19]—and the fact that there is the possibility that the schism may be created through the fault of the “First,” namely, when he enters into union with condemned schismatics or heretics. [20] For His Eminence, these things evidently do not matter, and he considers that whoever cuts himself off from the “First” is necessarily placed “outside the Church.” But this is pure Papism!

Finally, His Eminence does not dare to speak about the falls of the “Firsts” into heresy and the consequences they have, but speaks about cases in which the “First” fell into “theological errors,” as he calls them, obviously fearing lest he shake the foundations of the “autocephalous” ecclesiology which he labored to build. A pity!

 

NOTES

[1] Fr. Georgy Maximov (Religious scholar – Doctor of Theology), “The Heresy of the Papism of Constantinople” https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/26628-airesi-tou-papismou-konstantinoupoleos [English source: https://orthochristian.com/118982.html]

[2] https://www.romfea.gr/images/article-images/2019/06/romfea2/kievo/Autocephalous-Church.pdf [English source: https://parembasis.gr/index.php/5809-2019-07-01a]

[3] Saint Nektarios (Kephalas), The Ecumenical Councils, Athens, 1892, p. 83.

[4] Ibid., p. 95.

[5] Ibid., p. 112.

[6] Vasilios Stefanidis, Ecclesiastical History, 2nd ed., Athens, 1959, p. 224.

[7] See Pheidas, Ecclesiastical History of Russia, Apostoliki Diakonia Publications, Athens, 2011, p. 295.

[8] Kon. Sathas, Biographical Sketch concerning Patriarch Jeremias II, Athens, 1870, p. 21.

[9] Kallinikos Delikanis, Patriarchal Documents, vol. 3, Constantinople, 1905, pp. 24–26.

[10] Christodoulos Paraskevaidis, later Archbishop of Athens, Meletios Pegas, Athens, 1971, p. 27.

[11] Methodios Fouyas, Letters of Meletios Pegas, Ecclesiastical Pharos 52 (1970), p. 232.

[12] Letter of the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos to the D.I.S. concerning the Ukrainian Question (https://www.romfea.gr/ekklisia-ellados/27999-epistoli-mitropoliti-naupaktou-pros-tin-dis-gia-to-oukraniko).

[13] Nafpaktos: “The Institution of Autocephaly in the Orthodox Church” (https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/24439-naupaktou-o-thesmos-tis-autokefalias-stin-orthodoji-ekklisia). [English source: https://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/articles-in-english/5514-2018-11-19-en]

[14] Dositheos of Jerusalem, History of Those Who Served as Patriarchs in Jerusalem, Bucharest, 1715, p. 954.

[15] Why, one wonders, does he not mention that these partial heads have someone among them as “head” and “first”?

[16] Meletios Pegas, Orthodox Christian Dialogue (Harley MS 5643, f.309v).

[17] From Christ, not from the “First”!

[18] Maximos the Peloponnesian, Handbook against the Schism of the Papists, Bucharest, 1690, pp. 36–37, 79. And again, no reference to anyone who is the head of the partial heads.

[19] Canon 15 of the First-Second Council. Indeed, the Canon clearly speaks of the right of walling off even “before a synodal decision.”

[20] See, for example, the case of John Bekkos.

 

Greek sources:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190819122100/https://katanixi.gr/2019/07/01/%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%AD%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B7-%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%AE-%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%AD%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B7-%CE%B5%CE%BA/

https://www.romfea.gr/images/article-images/2019/06/mannis_naupaktou.pdf

A Hermeneutics of Suspicion

by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna

 

 

One of the principles of contemporary scientific inquiry is that we proceed to establish an hypothesis by first attempting to reject it: by attempting to prove the so-called null hypothesis. Any hypothetical relationship that we confirm, by the same token, is always expressed in terms of a set criterion of probability that the disproved null hypothesis is indeed true. Modern science more assiduously avoids the introduction of wrongly affirmed hypotheses into the body of scientific data than it does the exclusion of wrongly rejected hypotheses into that body. Thus the essentially "negative" approach to truth.

The "negative" approach to the establishment of scientific "facts" has served the natural and social sciences well (though one might argue that a heuristic view of science—approaching all hypotheses as valid and worthy of investigation—is more expansive in its scope). Yet, it is an approach, when combined with the naive notion that the methodologies of the natural sciences can be applied universally, which has had a very negative effect on other fields of learning, especially theology. More often than not, less sophisticated investigators have come to think that good scholarship lies in the ability to debunk and to doubt a principle, while careful explication and investigation of an assumed truth is somehow unscientific. This hermeneutics of suspicion has come with full force to the Orthodox theological world in the form of a modernistic spirit of inquiry foreign to traditional Orthodox scholarship.

The natural sciences draw their hypotheses about the world from empirical investigation. An effect is established as a principle or law when it is confirmed by replication and the high probability that the effect is everywhere and at all times present under specified conditions. Orthodox theology also confirms its data by observation and replication, but its hypotheses are drawn from revelation. Whereas the natural sciences make probable statements about hypotheses drawn from deduction, theology confirms its revealed truths by their effects on the empirical world. Orthodox theology, therefore, is not unscientific in the sense of being oblivious to empirical data, but unlike the natural sciences, its methodology lies in a positive affirmation of spiritual principles in the real world.

An Orthodox theologian begins his study by affirming the existence of God and by applying the affirmations of that existence in revelation—whether Scriptural, Patristic, or experiential—to his own person and to the world around him. There is no possibility of the "negative" methodology that characterizes the natural sciences; nor can an Orthodox theologian approach theology as our tradition understands it in a spirit of doubt. The objective element in an Orthodox theologian's intellectual pursuit is his ability to capture, internalize, and then to express and articulate the spiritual truths which he encounters in Scripture and in the Fathers. His very objectivity lies in the authenticity of what he experiences. And that authenticity disallows a spirit of doubt and negativity.

It is a sad but true fact that many of our contemporary Orthodox theologians know little of the Patristic way of theology. They are thus neither theologians nor fully Orthodox in their thinking about and understanding of things spiritual. Indeed, most Orthodox theological thinkers, especially in America and Western Europe, are so immersed in the categories of Western theological science that they hardly understand that Orthodox theology is not a deductive science. An Augustinian theology prevails not only in the heterodox West, but holds forth strongly in the westernized spirituality of most of contemporary Orthodoxy—again, especially in America and in Western Europe.

Moreover, other Orthodox theologians confront the West, as Chrestos Yannaras once noted, with a sense of inferiority. A hermeneutics of suspicion and doubt, indeed, of snide sarcasm among the less savory advocates of this "science," often intimidates them. They therefore abandon the Orthodox way of scholarship and unwittingly adopt a methodology of inquiry which is inimical to Orthodoxy itself. As I read in a column in Orthodox Tradition some time ago, would-be experts on the Liturgy begin their classes with silly remarks about the "decrepit" state of contemporary Orthodox worship, undoubtedly unintentionally falling to blasphemy in the immature desire to imitate the negative spirit of their Western theological mentors. This is a sad state of affairs, for it deprives these individuals of their own Orthodox identity and, at the same time, serves to perpetuate a Western ascendency in theological scholarship which is neither fair nor productive.

We Orthodox must begin to defend our traditional approach to theology and cease imitating or being intimidated by the theological schools of the West. For example, I recently served as a reader for a fine doctoral dissertation written by an Orthodox clergyman, a thorough and analytical investigation of first quality. One of the other readers—non-Orthodox—commented that the paper, while well written and interesting, lacked the methodological rigor of what one would expect from a paper by a Western Christian scholar. Though openly confessing his ignorance of Patristics and displaying an obvious ignorance of Orthodox scholarship, the same reader made reference to the uncritical nature of Orthodox scholarship in general. He suggested that a spirit of "suspicion" in approaching the Orthodox attitude toward the subject matter of the dissertation might have made it more provocative and might have freed it from the ostensible limitations of Orthodox scholarship.

As is usually the case, the reader in question had no extensive knowledge of the Fathers. How, then, could he comment on the methodology of a theological system based on the Patristic witness? Moreover, sweeping criticism by those ignorant of the foundations of the scholarship which they are assessing is as unscientific and unobjective as the reader presumes Orthodox scholarship to be. I made this quite clear to the student who had written the thesis and made my views known, as well, to the other members of his dissertation committee. In following such a course, I brought into focus the fact that the negative scholarly methodologies of the West are not the exclusive paths to objective knowledge. Rather, they are often the source of unobjective thoughts and observations, as in the case of the negative comments about this dissertation.

One must learn to look at Western criticism for what it is: more often than not, it is the product of limited knowledge or of deep resentment of the expansive and impressive body of knowledge that constitutes the theology of the Orthodox Church. Viewing the West in this more objective way, unintimidated by its supposedly superior methodologies, one can turn with full faith to Orthodox studies. Uninhibited by Western prejudice, the Orthodox scholar can insist that Westerners allow the existence of methodologies which, while quite different from their own, are nonetheless quite rigorous and scientific within their own right.

With regard to the Orthodox Faith, we as Christians have fixed responsibilities within the Church. We should therefore discourage our Orthodox students, theologians, and leaders from adopting the snide suspicion and cynicism that mark much of Western theological studies. When we approach Scripture, the Fathers, and the teachings of the Orthodox Church with doubt, we are mocking the very meaning of Faith. As Soren Kierkegaard once remarked—if I may paraphrase from memory—, a philosophy which begins with doubt is like teaching a soldier to stand at attention by asking him to fall on the ground in a dead heap. Likewise, any attempt to set forth Orthodoxy by a methodology of doubt is doomed to fall in on itself. If faith in the truth of the revelatory foundations of Orthodoxy is missing, any theology thus set forth is, again, neither Orthodox nor—by an Orthodox reckoning— theology. Such "theologies" we must reject.

We traditional Orthodox scholars are not the inferiors of our Western brethren. We, too, can understand the scientific method. Many of us are very competent statisticians. Many of us understand well the assumptions of contemporary philosophy and the burning issues in the philosophy of science. We are not ignorant of the ways of Western theology. Nor, to be sure, are we so bold as to criticize Western theology without knowing thoroughly its ways and presuppositions—a boldness all too frequently to be observed in Western scholars as they approach the Orthodox East. We have, therefore, every right to speak candidly and forcefully to the heterodox West. After all, they proffer their often unfounded criticism of our scholarship with a knowledge of the intellectual world limited to their Western experience, while we have at hand a world-view which encompasses both the Western world and its Eastern roots.

In living, writing about, and protecting our ancient Faith, we Orthodox have a positive witness before the modern world. Let us not sacrifice it before a methodology of doubt that unfairly renders our way to knowledge "unscientific."

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VII (1990), No. 2, p. 13.

Human Abandonment and Godly Sorrow

A Letter of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

(Commemorated on 13 July)

 

 

My beloved friend and brother in Christ!

It is written: “and my nearest of kin stood afar off” (Ps. 37:13). For white does not go with black and darkness is not in accord with light. Piety is in constant conflict with impiety. What concord can there be when one is trying and struggling to climb a mountain, while the other is tumbling down?

“And my nearest of kin stood afar off,” because you have stood far away from them. You stand far away because you find nothing in common with them. We avoid smoke and pitch lest we dirty ourselves; we distance ourselves from an epidemic lest we catch an illness; we flee from lepers lest we suffer the same as them.

That is why it has been said: “come out from among them…and touch not the unclean” (II Cor. 6:17, Is. 52:11, Rev. 18:4). Every person who avoids such ones draws near to God; and the nearer he draws to Him, the more people avoid him. And the more people avoid him, the nearer God draws near to him, like someone who has been abandoned. “The poor man has been left to thee; Thou wast a helper to the orphan” (Ps. 9:35). You must be the type of poor person that people abandon.

“O my God, Who hast all things! May everyone abandon me, until the last person; only do Thou not abandon me! I shall have all things in Thee; Thou art my help, comfort, strengthening, protection, refuge, counsel, and my consolation.” When you are abandoned by people, turn to God, as you do and as you write. For He shall find the way to accomplish His work, when people can do nothing. Now, that is the first thing.

Secondly. We must be sorrowful because we have saddened God; this wound is healed with such a bandage. When one has saddened God (O my God! Who are we? Worms, earth, dust, and ashes, and we sadden Thy Majesty! Do not allow us to do such a thing again, by Thy Grace!), when, as I was saying, one has saddened God, this is healed by being sorrowful for God’s sake. Sin induces sorrow, and with this sorrow, it is cured. A bitter thing is sorrow, which nevertheless swallows up its malevolent progenitor, sin. Such is the wondrous wisdom of God: the wound is healed by a wound! “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of” (II Cor. 7:10), says the Apostle.

Thy mercy, O Lord, shall pursue me all the days of my life! Save, O Christ God, all of those you came to save, because for their sakes didst Thou shed Thine All-Holy Blood!

Closing here, and entrusting myself to the mercy of God, I remain...

 

Source: Ἃγιος Κυπριανός, No. 321 (July-August 2004), p. 88. Letter No. 18 from the Complete Works of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk (in Russian), Vol. V, 2nd ed. (Moscow:1994), pp. 305-306.

Orthodox Christianity: Compassion for Animals

Kallistos Ware

 

 

What is a merciful heart? It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humankind, for the birds, for the animals, for the demons, for all that exists.

– St. Isaac the Syrian (seventh century)

 

A Place for Animals in Our Worship?

As I sit writing at my table, I have before me a Russian icon of the martyrs St. Florus and St. Laurus. At the top of the icon is the archangel Michael, and on either side of him are the two saints. Below them there is a concourse of horses, old and young: some have riders, some are riderless but with saddle and bridle, and others are running freely. I am not sure what the connection is between horses and these two stonemasons from Constantinople who suffered martyrdom in the early fourth century. But there the horses are, prominently depicted in the icon, and their presence gives me continuing pleasure.

Beside my bed I have another icon that shows the leading Russian saint of the nineteenth century, Seraphim of Sarov. He is seated on a log outside his wooden cabin in the forest, with his prayer rope in one of his hands, and with the other hand he is offering a piece of bread to a huge brown bear. Great was the surprise and alarm of visitors to the saint’s hermitage when they came upon him in the company of his four-footed friend Misha.

For members of the Orthodox Church, an icon is not to be regarded in isolation, simply as a picture on a religious subject, a decorative item designed to give aesthetic pleasure. Much more significant is the fact that an icon exists within a distinct and specific context. It is part of an act of prayer and worship, and divorced from that context of prayer and worship, it ceases to be authentically an icon. The art of the icon is, par excellence, a liturgical art. [1] If, then, Orthodox icons depict not only humans but also animals, does this not imply that the animals have an accepted place in our liturgical celebration and our dialogue with God? We do not forget that when Jesus withdrew to pray for forty days in the wilderness, he had the animals as his companions: “he was with the wild beasts” (Mark 1:13).

What the icon shows us – that the animals share in our prayer and worship – is confirmed by the prayer books used in the Orthodox Church. [2] It is true that when we look at the main act of worship, the Service of the Eucharist, we are at first sight disappointed, for in its two chief forms – the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and that of St. Basil the Great – there are no direct references to the animal creation. Yet when we pray at the beginning of the liturgy “for the peace of the whole world,” this surely includes animals. As one commentator puts it, “we pray for the peace of the universe, not only for mankind, but for every creature, for animals and plants, for the stars and all of nature.” [3]

Turning, however, to the daily office, we find not only implicit but also explicit allusions to animals. A notable example comes at the beginning of Vespers. In the Orthodox understanding of time, as in Judaism, the new day commences not at midnight or at dawn but at sunset, and so Vespers is the opening service in the twenty-four-hour cycle of prayer. How, then, do we begin the new day? Throughout the year, except in the week after Easter Sunday, Vespers always starts in the same way: with the reading or singing of Psalm 103 (104). This is a hymn of praise to the Creator for all the wonders of his creation, and in this cosmic doxology we have much to say about the animals:

You make springs gush forth in the valleys;

they flow between the hills,

They give drink to every beast of the field;

the wild donkeys quench their thirst.

Beside them the birds of the air have their habitation;

they sing among the branches.

The psalm continues by speaking of cattle, storks, wild goats, badgers, and young lions, and it concludes this catalogue of living creatures with a reference to Leviathan, who must surely be a whale:

Yonder is the sea, great and wide,

which teems with things innumerable,

living things both small and great.

There go the ships,

and there is the great sea monster

which you formed to sport in it.

In this way, embarking upon the new day, we offer the world back to God in thanksgiving. We bless him for the sun and moon, for the clouds and wind, for the earth and the water; and not least we bless him for the living creatures, in all their diversity and abundance, with whom he has peopled the globe. We rejoice in their beauty and their playfulness, whereby they enrich our lives:

How marvellous are your works, O Lord!

In wisdom have you made them all.

As we stand before God in prayer, the companionship of the animals fills our hearts with warmth and hope.

Nor is it only in the service of Vespers that animals have their assured place. In the Orthodox book of blessings and intercessions known in Greek as the Evchologion, and in Slavonic as the Trebnik (Book of Needs in English), there are prayers for the good health of sheep, goats, cattle, horses, donkeys, mules, and even bees and silkworms; also, on the negative side, there are prayers for protection from poisonous snakes and noxious insects. Up to the present day, the great majority of Eastern Christians have dwelled in an agricultural rather than an urban environment, and so it is only natural that their prayers – rooted in the concerns of this world as well as being otherworldly – should reflect the needs of a farming community. In daily prayer as in daily life, humans and animals belong to a single community.

As a typical example of a prayer for living creatures, let us take these phrases from a blessing on bees:

In ancient times you granted to the Israelites a land flowing with milk and honey (Exod. 3:8), and you were well-pleased to nourish your Baptist John with wild honey in the wilderness (Matt. 3:4). Now also, providing in your good pleasure for our sustenance, do you bless the beehives in this apiary. Greatly increase the multiplication of the bees within them, preserving them by your grace and granting us an abundance of rich honey. [4]

A prayer for silkworms includes the following words:

All-good King, show us even now your loving kindness; and as you blessed the well of Jacob (John 4:6), and the pool of Siloam (John 9:7), and the cup of your holy apostles (Matt. 26:27), so bless also these silkworms; and as you multiplied the stars in heaven and the sand beside the sea-shore, so multiply these silkworms, granting them health and strength: and may they feed without coming to any harm . . . so that they may produce shrouds of pure silk, to your glory and praise. [5]

Yet not all prayers for animals are as genial as these, for there are also exorcisms directed against the creatures who, in this fallen world, inflict harm on humans and their produce:

I adjure you, O creatures of many forms: worms, caterpillars, beetles and cockroaches, mice, grasshoppers and locusts, and insects of various kinds, flies and moles and ants, gadflies and wasps, and centipedes and millipedes, . . . injure not the vineyard, field, garden, trees or vegetables of the servant of God [name], but be gone into the wild hills and into the barren trees that God has given you for sustenance. [6]

It can be noted here that the exorcism does not actually pray for the destruction of these baneful creatures, but prays only that they should depart to their proper home and cease to molest us. Even rats, hornets, and spiders have their appointed place in God’s dispensation! [7]

Here, by way of contrast, is a prayer by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1748–1809) expressing tenderness and compassion for the animals:

Lord Jesus Christ, moved by your tender mercy, take pity on the suffering animals… For if a righteous man takes pity on the souls of his cattle (Prov. 12:10. LXX), how should you not take pity on them, for you created them and you provide for them? In your compassion you did not forget the animals in the ark (Gen. 9:19–20) . . . Through the good health and the plentiful number of oxen and other four-footed beasts, the earth is cultivated and its fruits increase; and your servants, who call upon your name, enjoy in full abundance the produce of their farming. [8]

Many other examples of such prayers for the animals could be quoted, but these are enough to show that Orthodox intercessions are not exclusively anthropocentric but encompass the entire created order. We humans are bound to God and to one another in a cosmic covenant that also includes all the other living creatures on the face of the earth: “I will make for you a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground” (Hos. 2:18; cf. Gen. 9:15). [9] We humans are not saved from the world but with the world, and that means with the animals. Moreover, this cosmic covenant is not something that we humans have devised, but it has its source in the divine realm. It is conferred upon us as a gift by God.

A striking illustration of this covenant bond is to be seen in the custom that once prevailed in the Russian countryside; perhaps it still continues today. Returning from the Easter midnight service with their newly kindled Holy Fire, the farmers used to go into the stables with the lighted candle or lantern and greet the horses and cattle with the paschal salutation “Christ is Risen!” The victory of the risen savior over the forces of death and darkness has meaning not only for us humans but also for the animals. For them also Christ has died and risen again. “Now all things are filled with light,” says the hymn at the Easter matins.

Do Animals Have Souls?

St. Nicodemus, in the prayer quoted previously, cites the words of Proverbs 12:10: “The righteous man shows pity for the souls of his cattle.” [10] Does this mean that animals have souls? [11] The answer depends on what precisely we mean by the soul. The Greek word psyche in the ancient world had a wider application than that which is customarily given in the present day to our word “soul.” Aristotle, for example, distinguishes three levels of soul: the vegetable, the animal, and the human. [12] According to this Aristotelian scheme, the vegetable or nutritive soul has the capacity for growth, but not for movement or sensation. The animal soul has the capacity for movement and sensation, but not for conscious thought or reason. Only the human soul is endowed with self-knowledge and the power of logical thinking. For Aristotle, then, psyche means in an inclusive fashion all expressions of life force and vital energy, whereas in contemporary usage we limit the term “soul” to the third level: the human or rational soul. If we today were to speak of potatoes or tomatoes as possessing souls, our remarks would doubtless be considered facetious. But Aristotle was not trying to make a joke.

Employing the term “soul” in a restricted sense, as denoting specifically the self-reflective rational soul, most thinkers in the West – and, on the whole, in the Christian East as well – have denied that animals are ensouled. Descartes held that they are simply intricate machines or automata. In such a view, there is a clear demarcation between human beings and the animal world. Humans alone, it is said, are created in God’s image, and they alone possess immortality, in contrast to “the beasts that perish” (Ps. 48 [49]:12, 20). In modern Greek the horse is called alogon, “lacking logos or reason.” Animals, so it is maintained, cannot form abstract concepts, and so they are unable to construct logical arguments; they lack personal freedom and the faculty of moral choice, for they cannot discern between good and evil but act solely from instinct.

Yet are we in fact justified in making such an emphatic division between ourselves and other animals? (I say “other” because we humans are also animals; we have the same origin as those whom we call “beasts.”) Many of the characteristics that we tend to regard as distinctively human are also to be found, to a varying extent, in other animals as well. This certainly was the view of early Christian writers. “The instinct (physis) that exists in hunting dogs and war horses,” observes Origen (c. 185 – c. 254), “comes near, if I may say so, to reason itself.” [13] We may think of the behavior of a monkey, confronted by a cage with a complicated latch and with a banana inside. Seeking to open the cage, twisting the latch first in one direction and then in another, the monkey is evidently engaged in something closely similar to the process of thinking that a human being would employ in a similar situation. Animals as well as humans try to solve problems.

Origen has in view domesticated animals, but Theophilus of Antioch (late second century) goes further, noting how the instinct in all animals, free-living as well as domesticated, leads them to mate and to care for their offspring: this indicates that they possess “understanding.” [14] Other patristic authors point out that animals share with humans not only a certain degree of reason and understanding but also memory and a wide range of emotions and affections. They display feelings of joy and grief, asserts St. Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–79), and they recognize those whom they have met previously. [15] St. John Climacus (c. 570 – c. 649) adds that they express love for each other, for “they often bewail the loss of their companions.” [16] Indeed, some animals are faithfully monogamous, in a way that all too many humans conspicuously are not.

It is often argued that animals lack the power to articulate speech. Yet as we can see from dolphins, they have other subtle ways of communicating with one another. Ants and bees are capable of social cooperation on an elaborate scale. Animals may not use tools, but they do not simply exist within the world; they actively adapt the environment to their own needs. Birds build nests; beavers construct dams.

Nor is this all. If we are to accept the testimony of scripture, it would seem that animals can sometimes display visionary awareness, perceiving things to which we humans are blind. In the story of Balaam’s ass (Num. 22:21–33), the donkey sees the angel of the Lord blocking the pathway with a drawn sword, whereas Balaam himself is unaware of the angel’s presence. As investigators of the paranormal have often discovered, animals react to unseen “presences” in places reputed to be haunted. May it not be claimed that animals possess, at least in a rudimentary form, psychic insight and a capacity for spiritual intuition?

Instead of making a sharp separation between animals and human beings, would it not be wiser to keep in view the kinship that links us together? Nemesius of Emesa (late fourth century) was surely correct to insist upon the unity of all living things. Sharing as they do the same life force, plants, animals, and humankind belong to the single integrated structure of creation. [17] We and the animals are interdependent, “members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). The world is variegated yet everywhere interconnected. As my history master at school used to say, “It all ties up, you see; it all ties up.”

Can we in fact be sure that animals do not enjoy immortality? At any rate there is good reason to believe that animals will exist in the future age, after the Second Coming of Christ and the general resurrection of the dead. As Isaiah affirms, “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion together, and a little child shall lead them” (Isa. 11:6). When Martin Luther, distressed by the death of his companion dog, was asked whether there would be animals in heaven, he replied, “There will be little dogs with golden hair, shining like precious stones.” [18]

It is not clear, however, whether these animals in the age to come will be the same animals as we have known in this present life. Yet that is at least a possibility; we do not have good grounds for asserting that it could not conceivably be so. Let us leave the question open. Friendship and mutual love contain within themselves an element of eternity. For us to say to another human person, with all our heart, “I love you,” is to say by implication, “You will never die.” If this is true of our love for our fellow humans, may it not be true of our love for animals? Although we are not to love animals in the same way we love our fellow humans, those of us who have experienced the deeply therapeutic effect of a companion animal will certainly recognize that our reciprocal relationship contains within itself intimations of immortality.

Even if animals are not ensouled, they are undoubtedly sentient. They are responsive and vulnerable. As Andrew Linzey rightly says,

animals are not machines or commodities but beings with their own God-given life (nephesh), individuality and personality… Animals are more like gifts than something owned, giving us more than we expect and thus obliging us to return their gifts. Far from decrying these relationships as “sentimental,” “unbalanced,” or “obsessive” (as frequently happens today), churches could point us to their underlying theological significance – as living examples of divine grace. [19]

“Cruelty is atheism,” said Humphrey Primatt in the eighteenth century. “Cruelty is the worst of heresies.” [20] Indeed, not only should we refrain from cruelty to animals, but in a positive way we should seek to do them good, enhancing their pleasure and their unselfconscious happiness. In the words of Starets Zosima in Dostoevsky’s masterwork The Brothers Karamazov: “Love the animals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and an untroubled joy. Do not trouble it, do not torment them, do not go against God’s purpose. Man, do not exalt yourself above the animals; they are sinless, and you, you with all your grandeur, defile the earth through your appearance upon it, and leave traces of your defilement behind you – alas, this is true of almost every one of us!” [21]

Unfortunately, it has to be said that although there can be found within Orthodoxy a rich theology of the animal creation, there exists a sad gap between theory and practice. It cannot be claimed that in traditional Orthodox countries such as Greece, Cyprus, or Romania, animals are better treated than in the non-Orthodox West; indeed, the contrary is regrettably true. We Orthodox need to kneel down before the animals and ask their forgiveness for the evils that we inflict upon them. I have concentrated here on the positive elements in the Orthodox teaching about animals, but we should not ignore the many ways in which we fall short of our pastoral responsibility toward the living creatures, domesticated and free-living, whom God has given us to be our companions.

Dominion or Domination?

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?” says Jesus. “Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will” (Matt. 10:29). “Not one of them,” he says: God’s care for his creation, his love for all the things that he has made, is not merely an abstract and generalized love. He cares for each particular creature, for every individual sparrow. But Jesus then goes on to say, “You are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt. 10:31). Every living thing has its unique value in God’s sight, but at the same time we dwell in a hierarchical universe, and some living things have a greater value than others.

The significance of this hierarchy is expressed in a more specific way in God’s creative utterance in the opening chapter of Genesis: “Then God said, ‘Let us make the human being in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth’” (Gen. 1:26). Humans, then, are entrusted by the Creator with authority over the animals. Yet this God-given “dominion” does not signify an arbitrary and tyrannical domination. We must not overlook the explicit reason that is given for this dominion: it is because we are fashioned in the image and likeness of God. That is to say, in the exercise of our dominion over the animals, we are to show the same gentleness and loving compassion that God himself shows toward the whole of his creation. Our dominion is to be God-reflective and Christlike.

How far does this dominion extend? Certainly, it includes the right to use domesticated animals for our service: to employ horses and oxen for plowing, to keep cows for their milk, to breed sheep for their wool. Yet there are definite limits to what we can legitimately do. We should not adopt a narrowly instrumentalist attitude toward animals. We are to respect their characteristic “lifestyles,” allowing them to be themselves. This is scarcely what happens with battery hens! We are not to inflict upon them excessive burdens that cause them exhaustion and suffering. We are to ensure that they are kept warm, clean, and healthy and are properly fed. Only so will our dominion be according to the image of divine compassion.

Does our dominion over the animals entitle us to kill and eat them? In the Orthodox Church, as in other Christian communities, there are many who on serious grounds of conscience refrain from eating animals. But the Orthodox Church as such is not in principle vegetarian. The normal teaching is that animals may indeed be killed and used for food, so long as this killing is done humanely and not wantonly. It is true that in traditional Orthodox monasteries, meat is not eaten in the refectory; fish, however, is allowed. It is also true that during Lent and certain other seasons of the year, all Orthodox Christians, whether monastic or in the “world,” are required to abstain from animal products. But this is not because the eating of animal products is in itself sinful, but because such fasting has disciplinary value, assisting us in our prayer and our spiritual growth. In the Gospels it is stated that Christ ate fish: “They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he ate before them” (Luke 24:41–42). Since he observed the Passover, presumably he also ate meat.

Beasts and Saints

In the lives of Eastern Christian saints – as among the saints of the West, especially in the Celtic tradition – there are numerous stories, often well authenticated, of close fellowship between animals and holy men and women. Such accounts are not to be dismissed as sentimental fairy tales, for they have a definite theological significance. The mutual understanding between animals and humans recalls the situation before the Fall, when the two lived at peace in paradise, and it points forward to the transfiguration of the cosmos at the end-time. In the words of St. Isaac the Syrian (seventh century), “the humble person approaches the wild animals, and the moment they catch sight of him their ferocity is tamed. They come up and cling to him as to their master, wagging their tails and licking his hands and feet. For they smell on him the same smell that came from Adam before the transgression.” [22]

This is not to say that mutual understanding between holy men and free-living animals has always been complete! There is, for example, a story in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers about an unsociable lion: “There was a certain old man, a solitary, who lived near the river Jordan; and going into a cave because of the heat, he found there a lion. The lion began to gnash his teeth and to roar. The old man said to him, ‘What is annoying you? There is plenty of room here for both of us. And if you don’t like it, get up and go away.’ But the lion, not taking it well, left and went outside.” [23]

Many of the twentieth-century stories about humans and animals come from the Holy Mountain of Athos, the chief center of Orthodox monasticism. I recall one such story, told to me many years ago. As the monks in a small hermitage prayed in the early morning, they were much disturbed by the croaking of frogs in the cistern outside their chapel. The spiritual father of the community went out and addressed them: “Frogs! We’ve just finished the Midnight Office and are about to start matins. Would you mind keeping quiet until we’ve finished!” To this the frogs replied, “We’ve just finished matins and are about to begin the First Hour. Would you mind keeping quiet until we’ve finished!”

Compassion for animals is vividly expressed in the writings of a recent Athonite saint, the Russian monk Silouan (1866–1938). “The Lord,” he says, “bestows such rich grace on his chosen ones that they embrace the whole earth, the whole world within their love . . . One day I saw a dead snake on my path which had been chopped into pieces, and each piece writhed convulsively, and I was filled with pity for every living creature, every suffering thing in creation, and I wept bitterly before God.” [24]

Such is in truth the compassionate love that we are called to express toward animals. All too often, they are innocent sufferers, and we should view this undeserved suffering with compunction and sympathy. What harm have they done to us that we should inflict pain and distress upon them? As living beings, sensitive and easily hurt, they are to be viewed as a “thou,” not an “it,” to use Martin Buber’s terminology: not as objects to be exploited and manipulated but as subjects capable of joy and sorrow, of happiness and affliction. They are to be approached with gentleness and tenderness and, more than that, with respect and reverence, for they are precious in God’s sight. As William Blake affirmed, “every thing that lives is holy.” [25]

 

Notes

1. See Philip Sherrard, The Sacred in Life and Art (Ipswich: Golgonooza, 1990), 71–74.

2. Relatively little has been written on the theology of animals from an Orthodox viewpoint. Extensive material on saints and animals in both ancient and modern times can be found in two books by Joanne Stefanatos: Animals and Man: A State of Blessedness (Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 1992) and Animals Sanctified: A Spiritual Journey (Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 2001). On the non-Orthodox side, compare the classic anthology by Helen Waddell, Beasts and Saints (London: Constable, 1934). There is not much from Eastern Christian sources in the two collections (in other respects, rich and representative) edited by Andrew Linzey, Animal Rites: Liturgies of Animal Care (London: SCM, 1999) and, with Paul Barry Clarke, Animal Rights: A Historical Anthology (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004).

3. A Monk of the Eastern Church [Lev Gillet], Serve the Lord with Gladness: Basic Reflections on the Eucharist and the Priesthood (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 16.

4. The Great Book of Needs (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1999), vol. 4, 382–83 (translation adapted).

5. N. P. Papadopoulos, ed., Evchologion to Mega (Athens: Saliveros, n.d.), 511.

6. “Exorcism of the Holy Martyr Tryphon,” in The Great Book of Needs, vol. 3, 53 (translation adapted).

7. But at a later point in this same exorcism, it is said that if these creatures fail to obey the command to depart to their own place, “may he [God] kill you with pigs . . . and birds also will be sent by my prayers to devour you” (The Great Book of Needs, vol. 3, 54).

8. “Prayer of St. Modestos,” in Mikron Evchologion i Agiasmatarion (Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia, 1984), 297.

9. See Robert Murray, The Cosmic Covenant: Biblical Themes of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (London: Sheed and Ward, 1992).

10. I follow here the text of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used at Orthodox church services.

11. See Kallistos Ware, “The Soul in Greek Christianity,” in From Soul to Self, ed. M. James C. Crabbe (London: Routledge, 1999), especially 62–65. For other passages in the Septuagint that mention the “souls” of animals, see, for example, Gen. 1:21 and 1:24 and Leviticus 17:14.

12. See Ware, “The Soul in Greek Christianity,” 55–56.

13. On First Principles 3:1:3.

14. To Antolycus 1:6.

15. Hexaemeron 8:1 (PG 29:165AB).

16. The Ladder of Divine Ascent 26 (PG 88:1028A).

17. On the Nature of Man 1 (ed. Morani, 2:13–14; 3:3–25).

18. William Hazlitt, ed., The Table Talk of Martin Luther (London: H. G. Bohn, 1857), 322.

19. Linzey, Animal Rites, 58.

20. Quoted in Linzey, Animal Rites, 151.

21. Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Richard Pervear and Larissa Volokhonsky (New York: Vintage Classics, 1991), 319 (translation adapted).

22. Homily 82, in A. J. Wensinck, trans., Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, 1923), 386 (translation adapted).

23. Waddell, Beasts and Saints 24 (translation adapted).

24. Archimandrite Sofrony (Sakharov), Saint Silouan the Athonite (Tolleshunt Knights, UK: Stavropegic Monastery of St John the Baptist, 1991), 267, 469. But Silouan also warned against showing excessive affection toward animals (95–96).

25. William Blake, “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell,” in Geoffrey Keynes, ed., Poetry and Prose of William Blake (London: Nonesuch Press, 1948), 193.

 

References

Archimandrite Sofrony (Sakharov). Saint Silouan the Athonite. Tolleshunt Knights, UK: Stavropegic Monastery of St John the Baptist, 1991.

Blake, William. “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.” In Poetry and Prose of William Blake, edited by Geoffrey Keynes. London: Nonesuch Press, 1948.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by Richard Pervear and Larissa Volokhonsky. New York: Vintage Classics, 1991.

The Great Book of Needs. South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1999.

Hazlitt, William, ed. The Table Talk of Martin Luther. London: H. G. Bohn, 1857.

Linzey, Andrew. Animal Rites: Liturgies of Animal Care. London: SCM, 1999.

Linzey, Andrew, and Paul Barry Clarke. Animal Rights: A Historical Anthology. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

Mikron Evchologion i Agiasmatarion. Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia, 1984.

A Monk of the Eastern Church [Lev Gillet]. Serve the Lord with Gladness: Basic Reflections on the Eucharist and the Priesthood. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990.

Murray, Robert. The Cosmic Covenant: Biblical Themes of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation. London: Sheed and Ward, 1992.

Papadopoulos, N. P., ed. Evchologion to Mega. Athens: Saliveros, n.d.

Sherrard, Philip. The Sacred in Life and Art. Ipswich: Golgonooza, 1990.

Stefanatos, Joanne. Animals and Man: A State of Blessedness. Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 1992.

Stefanatos, Joanne. Animals Sanctified: A Spiritual Journey. Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 2001.

Waddell, Helen. Beasts and Saints. London: Constable, 1934.

Ware, Kallistos. “The Soul in Greek Christianity.” In From Soul to Self, edited by M. James C. Crabbe. London: Routledge, 1999.

Wensinck, A. J., trans. Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, 1923.

 

Source: The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics, edited by Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey, Routledge, London, 2019, pp. 127-135.