Abba Isaac the Syrian, the "Unjustly Accused" Saint

By Protopresbyter John Photopoulos

 

 

This paper has been prompted by the book The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian by the bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, as well as by the three-volume edition of the writings of Pseudo-Isaac published by the Sacred Monastery of the Prophet Elias in Thera titled The Ascetic Discourses of Saint Isaac the Syrian: A Translation from the Syriac. After this article there follows a letter by the author to the Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Prophet Elias in Thera on the issue of the cacodox writings of Pseudo-Isaac.

 

1. Introduction - Abba Isaac the Syrian

The complete and utter lack of uncreated Grace in the West and the consequent rationalization of theologians has created for it a mess, a confusion for all "Christians" in the West. Very many people who were seriously concerned for the faith and the Christian life were inoculated with persistent doubts in relation to the Gospel, its truth and authenticity, to the correct faith, to the authenticity of patristic texts and even concerning the existence of certain saints.

Unfortunately, this terrible confusion that was brought to Orthodox lands through books, periodicals, programs, conferences and committees have poisoned with small, careful doses the Orthodox consciousness. They sow hesitation in regards to the full and absolute truth of Orthodoxy and they use a supposed dialogue that aims at reconciling Orthodoxy with error, Orthodoxy with religions, always according to the dictates of the New Age.

The book by the Russian bishop of Vienna Hilarion Alfeyev, The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian, serves this purpose.

Before we talk about the book by Alfeyev we should say who Abba Isaac the Syrian is. He was born in Nineveh, or according to others near Edessa of Mesopotamia. Because there is a letter of his that is addressed to then young in age Saint Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain (521-596), it is assumed that Saint Isaac was "in full bloom" at around 530 A.D. and probably reposed at the end of the sixth century. At a young age he became a monk with his brother at the Monastery of Saint Matthew and later he fell in love with quietude and withdrew into the desert. When his brother became Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Matthew, he invited him to return to the Monastery, but having now experienced quietude he refused this request. Later, however, he obeyed a divine revelation and agreed to become the bishop of Nineveh, though for a short time. The day he was ordained bishop two people came to his diocese to solve a dispute between them. When the Saint set the Gospel as the basis for the solution to their problem, one of them refused. The Saint then thought: "If they are not obedient to the gospel commands of the Lord, then why did I come here?" He thus abandoned the episcopal throne and returned to his beloved skete, where he lived and struggled until his death.

But if the detailed life of Abba Isaac is not known, the Saint is well known through his Ascetic Discourses. In the eighth of later ninth century two monks from the Monastery of Saint Savvas in Palestine, Abramios and Patrikios, discovered the heavenly treasure of the Discourses of the Saint and translated them from Syriac to ancient Greek. This treasure spread everywhere through translations into the Arabic, Slavonic and Latin languages, and then into every European language.

Thus, the works of Venerable Isaac became the delight, spiritual food and consolation of hesychasts, monks and all the faithful. He emerged as an ecumenical teacher of the life in Christ. Even the heterodox with the translations in their own languages were captivated by his teachings and studied them with thirst.

Despite this, only in recent years has the feast for his commemoration been established. In the olden days on Mount Athos, he was honored on January 28th together with Saint Ephraim, while lately it is done on September 28th. But does this delay of the celebration of his commemoration plague his sanctity or glory? Perhaps Abba Isaac is not a Saint? From the outset we must say that there are many Saints who are not referred to as Saints in Patristic books and do not have an established commemoration or, as was done with Saint Isaac the Syrian, their commemoration was not established until recently. You will search in vain for the commemoration day of Venerable Theognostos whose writings are in the Philokalia, while the commemorations of Saint Diadochos of Photike, Hesychios the Presbyter, Saint John of Karpathos who wrote "For the Encouragement of the Monks in India", Saint Nicholas Kabasilas and Saint Symeon of Thessaloniki were established in recent years.

2. What the Holy Fathers Say About Abba Isaac

Despite the lack of a day for commemorating this Saint and many others, the Church accepts them as authentic in Christ, their Life as in the Holy Spirit, their teachings as a distillation of their experience of theosis, of their "sensation in God" as Abba Isaac writes.

All these things are eminently applicable to the highest degree in the person of Saint Isaac. All of the ascetic fathers after him refer to him as Saint Isaac, as a true teacher of the ascetic life, as an experienced fighter and trainer in the war against the devil and the passions, as a spiritual litmus test by which is tested the experiences of those who fight as to whether something is of God or of the devil. Saint Peter of Damascus (12th cent.) refers to him 29 times! in his works that are contained in the Philokalia. He is also referred to by Saint Nikephoros the Monk, the teacher of Saint Gregory Palamas, in his "Discourse on the Watchfulness of the Heart"; by Saint Gregory of Sinai, who recommends to hesychasts the study of the Ascetic Discourses of Saint Isaac and places him together with Saint John of the Ladder and Saint Maximus the Confessor; and by Saints Kallistos and Ignatios Xanthopoulos (26 references). He is called by Saint Kallistos of Kataphygi "the uttermost educator of quietude".

Saint Gregory Palamas writes: "Saint Isaac calls illumination the fruit of prayer...", and he calls him an "inspector and author of secret inspections".

In the Life of Saint Savvas of Vatopaidi written by his biographer Saint Philotheos, Saint Isaac is referred to as "the experienced and learned Syrian that was notorious in hesychasm and theoria".

The great Russian hesychast, Saint Nilus Sorsky (1433-1508), refers to our Saint 37 times in his ascetic works.

Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite calls him "our God-bearing philosopher Saint Isaac".

Saint Justin Popovich writes: "Among these holy philosophers, one of those who holds the first place is the great ascetic and saint Isaac the Syrian. In his writings Saint Isaac, with rare empirical knowledge, observes and describes the procedure for the healing and purification of the human faculty of knowledge."

Elder Joseph the Hesychast would say: "If all the writings of the desert fathers which teach us concerning watchfulness and prayer were lost and the writings of Abba Isaac the Syrian alone survived, they would suffice to teach one from the beginning to end concerning the life of stillness and prayer. They are the Alpha and Omega of the life of watchfulness and interior prayer, and alone suffice to guide one from his first steps to perfection."

Elder Ieronymos of Aegina would say: "Isaac the Syrian hides a great treasure. Open him, read him, be enriched spiritually... If you do not have Isaac the Syrian, and you don't have the money to buy him, grab a bag and go out to beg for the money to buy him... When you read him you rejoice and you are rebuked... Forsake not Isaac. Every day one page of Abba Isaac. Not more. Isaac is the mirror. There you will behold yourself. The mirror is so that we may see if we have any shortcomings, any smudge on our face, in order to remove it, to cleanse ourselves. If there is a smudge on your face or on your eyes, in the mirror you will detect it and will remove it. In Abba Isaac you will behold your thoughts, what they are thinking. Your feet, where they are going. Your eyes, if they have light and see. There you will find many sure and unerring ways, in order to be helped. One page of Isaac a day. In the morning or at night, whatever. Suffice it that you read a page."

Elder Paisios would say: "If anyone went to a psychiatric hospital and read to the patients Abba Isaac, all those who believed in God would get well, because they would recognize the deeper meaning of life." In his Epistles the Elder wrote: "The study of the Ascetic Discourses of Abba Isaac helps very much, because it helps someone understand more deeply the meaning of life and every small or large complex, and everyone who believes in God that has these it will help them to remove them." At the end of the Life of the Elder we read: "He would say that the book of Abba Isaac is worth a whole patristic library. In the book [Ascetic Discourses] he read, while beneath an icon of the Saint, in which he holds a feather pen while writing, he inserted the note: 'My Abba, give me your pen to underline your entire book.'"

Elder Porphyrios would say: "Indeed, in regards the mysteries God reveals within us, silence is the best. Yet, what happened with the Apostle Paul could happen to us, where he says: 'I lost control; you forced me to say things out of love.' Abba Isaac was saddened over the same thing, where he was forced to speak of the mysteries and the profound experiences of his heart, but fueled by love alone, see what he says: 'I became foolish; I have not suffered to preserve the mystery in silence, but I became a fool for the benefit of the brethren.'"

From all these testimonies of the Holy Fathers and modern Elders the universal acceptance of the holiness of Abba Isaac becomes apparent, as well as the holiness of his writings, his Orthodoxy, and the authenticity of his experiences in the Holy Spirit.

3. Irreverent Chatter Regarding the Person of Saint Isaac

Let us now turn to the book by Alfeyev. "From Wensinck's preface and other works I learnt who Isaac was" writes Bishop Kallistos Ware in the Foreword. "I discovered that he belonged to the Church of the East, commonly called 'Nestorian'. But so I gradually came to realize, this did not mean that either Isaac himself, or the ecclesiastical community to which he belonged, could justly be condemned as heretical." From the writings of Bishop Kallistos, as well as the entire book by Bishop Hilarion, it is immediately understood that they have eliminated from their consciousness the ecclesiastical tradition regarding the Life of Saint Isaac the Syrian, which they "learnt" from Wensinck and other works, saying that Abba Isaac was a Nestorian!

Western researchers studied the Nestorian "Book of Chastity" which refers to someone named Isaac who was born in Beit Qatraye on the western shore of the Persian Gulf and was ordained by the Nestorian Givargis as Bishop of Nineveh in around 660. After five months he resigned for unknown reasons and became an ascetic on Mount Matout. After he went to Shabur Monastery, where he died blind from much reading. He had written some books on the anchoretic life. After this awesome "discovery", the researchers concluded this was the Abba Isaac we are familiar with. With great ease Alfeyev despises all the existing elements of the Orthodox Life of Saint Isaac: a) his place of origin is Nineveh of Edessa in Mesopotamia and not Qatar, b) the time of his birth is estimated to be 100 years earlier, c) the narrative about what caused him to resign and his immediate departure he calls a "legend" rather than the narrative about the five months, d) the place of his asceticism was in a Skete and not Shabur Monastery. He creates myths about the reasons for his ordination and resignation from the episcopal office. For the most part Alfeyev considers the Nestorian historiography to be fully reliable, while the Orthodox information is fabulous and incomplete.

However, when comparing the two Lives it is evident that the Nestorian historical source that refers to an Isaac is a different person from our Saint. The fact that in the Syrian-Persian-Mesopotamian region Nestorianism was widespread does not mean that Orthodox did not exist there and Abba Isaac the Bishop of Nineveh should be identified as a Nestorian and not Orthodox.

Certainly, for a long time, problems have been created by identifying Orthodox Fathers with heretics. Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes about Saint Barsanuphios: "There were two named Barasanuphios, one our present Saint and most Orthodox Father, and another a heretic of the Monophysite heresy...who...is referred to by the divine Sophronios, the patriarch of Jerusalem... That this divine Barsanuphios...was most Orthodox and accepted by the Church of Christ as a Saint, is confirmed by the Holy Patriarch Tarasios who was asked about this by Saint Theodore the Studite. This is confirmed by this Theodore the Studite in his Testament: 'Furthermore...I accept...all the divine Fathers, Teachers and Ascetics, their lives and writings. I say these things in regards to the deranged Pamphilus, who studied in the East and slandered the Venerable Ones, such as Mark, Isaiah, Barsanuphios, Dorotheos and Hesychios.'" Thus, the criterion of the Orthodoxy of the Saints is the testimony paid to them from the Holy Fathers. Today many researchers and patrologists while researching will identify the two Barsanuphios' following the ways of the "deranged" Pamphilus.

We also have a fairly recent example. The well-known Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff insisted on characterizing Saint Savvas of Vatopaidi an anti-hesychast and anti-Palamite, although his Life is full of experiences in the Holy Spirit. He falsely identifies him with a certain anti-hesychast named Savvas Logaras, even though in a manuscript of the Sacred Monastery of Great Lavra it was revealed that the last name of the Saint was Tziskos! Did we really need this testimony to be convinced about the holiness of Saint Savvas of Vatopaidi, when we have his wondrous Life as a testimony written by Saint Philotheos?

4. The Blasphemy of Pseudo-Isaac

After the pseudo-revelation that Saint Isaac was Nestorian, another "revelation" followed. A certain Dr. Sebastian Brock discovered in an Oxford library in 1983 a manuscript in the Syriac language of the tenth or eleventh century that contained a collection of ascetic discourses (41 Chapters) that bore the name of Isaac the Syrian. Most of the Discourses were published by Brock in an English translation in 1995.

Unfortunately, the publisher "Thesvitis" of the Sacred Monastery of the Prophet Elias in Thera translated these Discourses in three volumes [in Greek]. It was assumed these were genuine documents of Abba Isaac. As Alfeyev writes concerning this collection: "It was not translated into Greek and the distribution was not accepted at first." Why? Was there a reason? Indeed. There are three very significant reasons.

A) Because according to Orthodox tradition, these texts do not belong to Saint Isaac.

Nowhere among Orthodox writings are these texts referenced. One is left to wonder at the certainty of Alfeyev and his teachers in Europe who give such regard to their authenticity, which he calls "Part II" of the works of Abba Isaac, while according to many researchers in the West, whom Alfeyev follows closely behind, say that during this period in the region of Syria and Mesopotamia there were many writers with the name Isaac. This fact raises doubts regarding the authorship of the texts that bear the name Isaac of Nineveh. Among these are Isaac of Antioch with texts against the Nestorians and Monophysites, Isaac of Amida and Isaac of Edessa who were both Monophysites, and a certain Orthodox named Isaac who was from Edessa. But Alfeyev proceeds to confuse by trying to purify the texts without, in my opinion, a good result. See what he writes: "Bedjan gives some extracts from Part III ["experts" even speak of a Part III!] as well, but these texts belong in fact to Dadisho' from Qatar (seventh century). Bedjan also mentions The Book of Grace, which is attributed to Isaac, but modern scholars question its authenticity. D. Miller claims that it is not by Isaac but belongs to the pen of Symeon d-Taibutheh." Even the authentic texts of the Saint does Alfeyev ascribe to heretics. Complete and universal confusion!

For us Orthodox, of course, who trust Tradition, things are simple. We do not accept, nor receive from other "sources", that is, from the thieves and robbers of our salvation, what is not given by our Holy Orthodox Church through the Holy Fathers. However, let us look at the second essential reason for rejecting these texts.

B) Because in many parts of these texts they are full of Nestorian cacodoxies and reference heretics.

The heretic Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, believed that in Christ there are not only two natures but also two persons. Unable to accept the union of the Divine Nature in the person of Christ, and the recruitment of the human nature in the hypostasis of God the Word, he invented various kinds of unions, such as "according to value..., according to will, according to honor, according to good-pleasure, according to relations", while denying the union according to hypostasis which is the condition for the salvation of man. This delusion was anathematized by the Third Ecumenical Synod in Ephesus.

From the extracted writings of Pseudo-Isaac mentioned by Alfeyev, it becomes obvious that the author was a Nestorian.

Here are excerpts:

a) "I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary of your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity, namely, for him who holds the scepter of your kingdom, who governs all you have brought into being, the glorious Tabernacle of your eternal Being...Jesus Christ."

Here we see the separation of the Divine Nature from the human. Jesus Christ is a man who is simply "the glorious Tabernacle of your eternal Being". This is a Nestorian delusion.

b) "We do not hesitate to call the humanity of our Lord - he being truly man - 'God' and 'Creator' and 'Lord'; or to apply to him in divine fashion the statement that 'by his hand the worlds were established and everything was created'... He even bade the angels worship him... He granted to him to be worshipped with himself indistinguishably, with a single act of worship for the Man who became Lord and for the Divinity equally, while the two natures are preserved with their properties, without there being any difference in honor."

We see here as well two separate persons "He" and "Him", the "Man" with a capital M and the "Divinity", and are given the same honor! It is for this reason that the holy Damascene calls Nestorius "a most deadly man worshipper", since he considers Christ a Man with a capital M and worships Him as God.

This delusion originated from the teacher of Nestorius, Theodore the bishop of Mopsuestia (392-428), and by Diodorus of Tarsus who taught Theodore. Theodore speaks of a "conjunction" or "union of two completely separate beings according to contact". He also believed that "before the Resurrection of Christ it was possible for him to sin; he could be captured by filthy thoughts". For his delusions he was posthumously condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod (553). As we read in the Proceedings: 

"First, we considered Theodore of Mopsuestia. When all the blasphemies in his works were exposed, we were astonished at God's patience, that the tongue and mind which had formed such blasphemies were not straightaway burned up by divine fire. We would not even have allowed the official reader of these blasphemies to continue, such was our fear of the anger of God at even a rehearsal of them (since each blasphemy was worse than the one before in the extent of its heresy and shook to their foundation the minds of their listeners), if it had not been the case that those who reveled in these blasphemies seemed to us to require the humiliation which their exposure would bring upon them. All of us, angered by the blasphemies against God, burst into attacks and anathemas against Theodore, during and after the reading, as if he had been living and present there. We said: Lord, be favorable to us; not even the demons themselves have dared to speak such things against you."

Saint Cyril of Alexandria writes concerning Theodore and Diodorus in an epistle to Emperor Theodosius: "There was a certain Theodore and before him a Diodorus...they were fathers of the impiety of Nestorius. And in their books, they composed exorbitant blasphemies against Christ the Savior of us all."

Yet these heresiarchs, in the texts of Pseudo-Isaac, are referred to as great teachers. "Anyone who likes can turn to the writings of the Blessed Interpreter", Pseudo-Isaac says of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, "a man who had his sufficient fill of the gifts of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures... For we are not rejecting his words - far from it! Rather, we accept him like one of the apostles, and anyone who opposes his words, introduces doubt into his interpretations, or shows hesitation at his words, such a person we hold to be alien to the community of the Church and someone who is erring from the truth." He calls Diodorus of Tarsus "the great teacher of the Church" and "sacred Diodorus", and he calls both Theodore and Diodorus "pillars of the Church".

C) Because the writings of Pseudo-Isaac affirm the Origenist cacodoxy about the apokatastasis of all things.

Pseudo-Isaac accepts the Origenist delusion of the apokatastasis (restoration) of all things. Origen believed, in opposition to the fearsome words of the Lord regarding eternal life and eternal hell, that at one point there will be an end to hell and everyone will enter Paradise! Pseudo-Isaac refers to the heretics Theodore and Diodorus who accepted these ideas to justify their cacodoxy regarding the end of Gehenna. He refers to Theodore who writes:

"Christ would never have said...'with much' and 'with few', if the penalties analogous to our sins would not receive an end at some point."

And referring to Diodorus he says:

"The torments awaiting the evil are not eternal...they may be tormented as they deserve but only for a short time...but then happiness and immortality await them that will be eternal."

Based on these heretical teachings Pseudo-Isaac leaps deeper into delusion when he says:

"It is clear that God does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, he is going to bring them to a single equal state of perfection in relationship to his own Being - to a state in which holy angels now are, in perfection of love and passionless mind... Maybe they will be raised to a perfection even greater than that in which the angels now exist."

These are terrible blasphemies of the Pseudo-Saint! The demons become greater than the angels?! Pseudo-Isaac has set out to bring about the designs of Lucifer by placing him above all others.

5. The Appalling Intervention of Bishop Kallistos Ware

In 1998 Bishop Kallistos Ware of Diokleia wrote an article for the journal Theology Digest (1998) titled: "Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?" He concludes by writing: "Our faith in God’s love makes us dare to hope that all will be saved."

With this article the foundation of Orthodox Eschatology is debated, in fact the very words of Christ. Bishop Kallistos asks if an eternal hell will exist. He places the reader before the philosophical dilemma: ultimate dualism or ultimate restoration and reconciliation. Here's his reasoning:

"If we start by affirming that God created a world which was wholly good, and if we then maintain that a significant part of His rational creation will end up in intolerable anguish, separated from Him for all eternity, surely this implies that God has failed in His creative work and has been defeated by the forces of evil. Are we tο rest satisfied with such a conclusion? Or dare we look, however tentatively, beyond this duality to an ultimate restoration of unity when 'all shall be well'?" Bishop Kallistos therefore seeks a happy end for the world's future. But this is contrary with the freedom of the love of the philanthropic Lord towards His creatures.

The Bishop uses known passages which speak of an "eternal hell", an "eternal fire", an "unsleeping worm", a "great divide" which, as he writes, "can be directly attributed to Jesus"! He implies that these are all metaphors and symbols while the adjective "eternal" can be related only with this age and not the future age. He thus implants the poison of doubt concerning the meaning of these fearsome words of the Lord and then compares these passages with another series of passages from the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, which he interprets like Origen. In regards to Origen, he writes: "Doubtless, Origen’s mistake was that he tried to say too much. It is a fault that I admire rather than execrate, but it was a mistake nonetheless." In the context of his admiration for Origen and to defend him, Kallistos Ware reaches the point where he questions the universal validity of the condemnation of Origen by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod.

To support his falsehoods regarding the apokatastasis (restoration) of all, Bishop Kallistos presents Abba Isaac as belonging to the "Church of the East", that is, as a Nestorian and he accepts as true the cacodoxies of the works of Pseudo-Isaac. He writes that Abba Isaac did not owe his allegiance to the Byzantine Emperor and therefore he did not recognize the Fifth Ecumenical Synod nor did he take into account the anathemas adopted against Origen. Behold, therefore, how Abba Isaac is a Nestorian and an Origenist and still a Saint! An oddity if nothing else.

Bishop Kallistos even writes in regards to Abba Isaac that "even more passionately than Origen, he rejects any suggestion that God is vengeful and vindictive... When God punishes us, or appears to do so, the purpose of this punishment is never retributive and retaliatory, but exclusively reformative and therapeutic." He finally argues that for Saint Isaac - or essentially for Pseudo-Isaac - "Gehenna is nothing else than a place of purging and purification which helps to bring about God’s master plan 'that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim 2:4). In this way our Abba unjustly shoulders the falsehoods of Pseudo-Isaac, and is among the supporters of the doctrine of purgatory. And of course, obliquely but clearly, this theory is embraced by Bishop Kallistos himself who observes "that Catholic and Orthodox views on the 'middle state' after death are less sharply opposed than appears at first." It therefore seems this Bishop has understood Purgatory better than the Holy Fathers and how insignificant this delusion of the Papacy really is! Behold another ecumenical bridge towards the Papists, and Saint Isaac the Syrian was chosen to play a significant role. Unfortunately for the ardent, late followers of Origenism, he refuses to play the role and his authentic teachings deny their false hope.

6. Abba Isaac on Eternal Life and Eternal Hell

All of the above cacodoxies of the Pseudo-Isaac writings have nothing to do with Abba Isaac and his all-around Orthodox teachings.

A) Regarding the Nestorian cacodoxies, despite the best efforts of Alfeyev and those with him, they cannot prove that such delusions exist in the authentic works of the Saint.

B) Regarding the apokatastasis of all, the following must be said:

Abba Isaac expresses God-like love towards all creation and even the demons:

"And what is a merciful heart? It is the heart’s burning for the sake of the entire creation, for men, for birds, for animals, for demons and for every created thing; and by the recollection and sight of them the eyes of a merciful man pour forth abundant tears. From the strong and vehement mercy which grips his heart and from his great compassion, his heart is humbled and he cannot bear to hear or see any injury or slight sorrow in creation. For this reason, he continually offers up tearful prayer, even for irrational beasts, for the enemies of the truth and for those who harm him, that they be protected and receive mercy. And in like manner he even prays for the family of reptiles because of the great compassion that burns in his heart without measure in the likeness of God."

But this love does not invalidate the teachings of the Gospel, which reaffirms our Abba:

"Scripture has not taught us the existence of three realms, but, 'When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.' He did not speak of three orders, but two: one on the right and one on the left. And he definitely separated the distinctions of their dwelling places, saying, 'The righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, but sinners shall depart into everlasting fire.' And again, 'Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth,' a thing more dreadful than any fire."

Pseudo-Isaac, who was an unillumined Nestorian, justifies the delusion regarding the apokatastasis of all by speaking of the love of God and asking:

"Who can say or imagine that the love of the Creator is not greater than Gehenna?"

Our most sweet Abba responds:

"It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God."

The love of God is not absent even in hell because uncreated energy is available to all. Hell is nothing but the steadfast refusal of the love offered. For believers this love becomes light, but it becomes fire for the damned. Here is how the blessed Venerable Isaac puts it:

"I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways: it torments those who have played the fool, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus, I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability."

So, one understands that hell is not a punishment from God, but a consequence of human choices. And God respects this and does not try to violently overthrow it, as Origenists maintain, together with Pseudo-Isaac, who eliminate the freedom of man.

7. The Purpose of the Book of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

However, Bishop Hilarion, the author of the book The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian, does not feel the need to justify the pseudo-saint for his delusions. He identifies him with Saint Isaac and believes that the Saint holds such cacodoxical views because he supposedly belonged to the Nestorian "Church of the East". This "Church", according to Alfeyev, in essence is not Nestorian although it "continues to commemorate Theodore and Diodorus even after the anathemas by Byzantium"; it "includes the name of Nestorius in its diptychs"; it "follows the theological and christological thought that is closer to that of Nestorius". We are talking about theological hilarities in no need of comments!

But the author neither has a problem with the Jacobite Church, which "is called 'Monophysite' by its theological opponents, and the Church of the East is Nestorian according to its enemies"! All these are Churches! The difference is that on one end we have the "Greek-speaking Byzantine tradition", and on the other the "East-Syriac tradition" and "West-Syriac tradition".

Thus Bishop Hilarion:

• creates confusion and sows doubts about the uniqueness and the truth of the Orthodox Church.

• raises doubts about the truths expressed by the Ecumenical Synods.

• puts, unjustifiably, in the mouth of the Saint blasphemous cacodoxies and undermines the trust of the faithful in his teachings and holiness.

• and finally, he classifies Saint Isaac among the Nestorians, he does him an injustice, he extinguishes his Orthodoxy, and he alters the basic faith of the Church that a Saint is only one who is divinized and only those are divinized who are in communion with the Orthodox Church.

The ultimate purpose of the book is to promote an ecumenical perspective since, as he says, "word of Saint Isaac has crossed not only the boundaries of time, but also confessional barriers... In our day his writings continue to draw the attention of Christians who belong to various traditions but share a common faith in Jesus and are engaged in the quest of salvation."

This of course is half the truth. Indeed, the heterodox seek salvation, but they are not given a share of the salvific faith of Saint Isaac and the Orthodox Church to which he belonged.

So, I wonder:

• How do some nominal Orthodox dare disrespect the "God-bearing philosopher", according to the Holy Fathers, Abba Isaac, and denigrate his venerable person, slander his holiness and distort his divinely-inspired writings?

• Since we are unworthy to even untie his shoes, having not tasted of his heavenly experience, why do we not fasten ourselves to the edge of his garments to have him as our warmest intercessor before Christ?

• And if we don't even have the disposition to do this, why do we impart scandals on behalf of the Orthodox and impediments on the path of the heterodox who are attracted to Orthodox teachings and seek to enter the One, Holy, Catholic and Orthodox Church?

• Should not the loved by all Saint Isaac remain a pointer to Orthodoxy, a key to open the hearts of our brethren wasting away in the heresy of the delusions of the West? Should he not be a call to Orthodox baptism which is the beginning of salvation and Orthodox asceticism in Christ?

Abba Isaac writes:

"For, behold, baptism forgives freely and requires nothing save faith. By repentance after baptism, however, God does not forgive sins freely. He demands labors, afflictions, sorrows of contrition, tears and weeping over a long period of time, and only then does He bestow remission."

• Lastly, should not the Saint be a living proof that without the Orthodox faith and baptism no one can taste something of the sweet teachings of the Saint, nor can they understand it correctly?

8. Elder Paisios and the Injustice Towards the Person of the Saint

It is written in the life of Elder Paisios that once he heard these slanders against Saint Isaac that he was a Nestorian. With much sadness he prayed and received information from above that the Saint was Orthodox. After this he wrote in his Menaion under January 28th, when Saint Ephraim the Syrian is celebrated, the following: "...and Isaac the great hesychast and much unjustly accused."

However, the injustice done to Saint Isaac by the book of Alfeyev and other similar books and publications, in essence are an injustice done not only to certain Orthodox who view the Saint with suspicion and are deprived of the benefit of his authentic teachings and intercessions, but also to the heterodox who see him as a wise Christian teacher with very good advice, but not as a wondrous Orthodox and ecclesiastical teacher of the life in Christ. With respect in regards the Saint himself, he does not lack any uncreated glory which surrounds the Lord in His kingdom.

9. Confidence in Sacred Tradition

After all that has been said it is clear that we should always have confidence in the experience of the Church, which is received through the Holy Fathers and delivers to us the lives and teachings of the Saints and God-bearing Fathers. In this case, the Church has given us the divinely-illumined Abba Isaac in Greek translation, texts that are most Orthodox, exuding grace and consolation. If we do not have confidence in the Sacred Tradition of our Church we will always be confused like "infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching" (Eph. 4:14) from the atheists and the rationalist Frankish theologians, who devoid of divine grace thirst and investigate without results.

 

First published in the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, no. 1659/6 Oct 2006, pp. 1 and 2; no. 1660/13 Oct 2006, p. 1; no. 1661/20 Oct 2006, pp. 1 and 2; no. 1662/27 Oct 2006, pp. 1 and 2.

Greek original shared by the G.O.C. Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle:

https://www.imoph.org/Theology_el/3d5088AbbaIsaak.pdf

English translation by John Sanidopoulos.