Saturday, January 10, 2026

Anti-Hesychasm in Pre-Revolutionary Russian Orthodoxy

Source: Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, by I. M. Kontzevich, St. Herman Press, Platina, CA, 1989, p. 23.

 

One more circumstance should be noted here — an almost generally negative or at best indifferent, attitude toward hesychasm. This was noted both during the last century and at the beginning of the present century. [4] It is only recently that an interest in hesychasm has begun to emerge. This could be explained by the fact that Russian theology, which began to develop during Peter I’s reforms under the influence of Western humanism, had not yet found its own direction. Western countries, on the other hand, from the very beginning of the so-called hesychast controversy of the 14th century, assumed negative attitudes towards this teaching. Moreover, during the last century, as a reaction following the reign of Alexander I and the preoccupation of certain people with Western mysticism, any kind of mysticism, even Orthodox mysticism, was approached with fear. As Professor Archpriest Georges Florovsky says: “Out of fear of mystical confusion and loss of balance people began to turn aside from the exhortations of both Macarius of Egypt and Isaac the Syrian, and the practice of mental prayer was abolished and ridiculed as a contagion and a pest.” [5] Speaking of Peter’s reign and pointing to the fact that “even theology was fashioned after the Western model” the professor notes the existence of a break in Church consciousness, “a break between theological scholarship and the actual experience of the Church.” [6] This situation has continued up to our days. This leaning towards the West began a long time ago and progressed gradually….

 

FOOTNOTES

4. Let us, for example, consider the academic course in Patrology offered by Archbishop Philaret Gumilevsky (1805–1866): “Historical Teaching About the Church Fathers.” The author prudently avoids analyzing the writings of the Holy Fathers on the subject of mental prayer. They are mentioned only in footnotes or are included in the general list. Even in a later period, in Manual for Clergy by S. V. Bulgakov (Kiev, 1913, p. 1622), hesychasts are spoken of as “being distinguished by the most unusual kind of eccentricities. They considered the navel as the center of spiritual energies and, consequently, the center of contemplation; and they thought that by lowering their chin towards the chest and gazing at the navel they would perceive the light of Paradise and rejoice in seeing celestial inhabitants. They considered this quiet concentration at one point as an indispensable condition for the perception of Uncreated Light.” Due to the patronage of Emperor Andronicus Palaeologus the Younger and the defense of St. Gregory Palamas, the hesychasts had victory over the Council of Constantinople in 1341, but “the outrageous opinion of the hesychasts concerning the reception of Uncreated Light was soon given over to oblivion.” Bulgakov’s book — this official handbook which was offered to all the clergy of such a large Orthodox land and which went through such severe spiritual censorship — demonstrates such complete ignorance of the question of hesychasm, naively repeating an old slander that had been levelled by its enemy Barlaam as far back as the 14th century.

5. Professor Archpriest Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology (Paris, 1937), p. 171.

6. Ibid., p. 101.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Question: How should we partake without scandal of communion of the holy mysteries when we happen to hear and see that the priest is falling into sins of the flesh?

  Answer of Saint Anastasios of Sinai (+ 7th c.) 1. It is only a bishop, and not a lay person, who can judge and condemn a priest, e...