THE SPIRITUAL WISDOM OF SAINT ISAAC THE SYRIAN FROM TWO ORTHODOX SOURCES

St. Isaac was born in the region of Qatar on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. When still quite young, he entered a monastery with his brother. His fame grew as a holy man and teacher. He was subsequently ordained bishop of Nineveh, the former capital of Assyria to the north, but requested to abdicate after only five months. He then went south to the wilderness of Mount Matout, a refuge for anchorites. There he lived in solitude for many years studying the Scripture, but eventually blindness and old age forced him to retire to the monastery of Rabban Shabur, where he reposed and was buried. His feast day is January 28

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: Prayer in St Isaac of Nineveh

my source: Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate

Paper delivered at the Conference on ‘Prayer and Spirituality in the EarlyChurch’, Melbourne, Australia, August 1995

Outward aspects of prayer

Prayer before the Cross

Reading

Night vigil

Prayer for the world

The highest stages of prayer

The theme of prayer is undoubtedly the most frequently discussed and most thoroughly developed theme in St Isaac of Nineveh, an East Syrian ascetical writer of the seventh century. When reading his works, one not only receives a clear idea about how he and other members of the Church of the East prayed in his times: one also gains a detailed picture of the theory and practice of prayer in the whole of the Eastern Christian tradition.

In this paper we shall outline the most characteristic features of Isaac’s doctrine of prayer, in particular, his teachings on different outward aspects of prayer; on the prayer before the Cross; on reading; on night vigil; on the prayer for one’s neighbour, the Church and the world; and on the highest mystical stages of prayer.

Outward aspects of prayer

There is a widespread opinion that an interest in the external aspects of ascetical activity and the practice of prayer is not characteristic of the mystical writers: they allegedly concentrate only upon the inner fruits of this practice. Isaac of Nineveh is one of many writers who provide confirmation of how misleading this opinion is. We find in him many descriptions of outward forms of prayer on the basis of his own practice and that of the solitaries of his time. 

Here is one of these descriptions:

One person may spend the entire day in prayer and in reading Scripture, giving over only a small part to standing in the recitation of the Psalter... Another person may be occupied the whole day solely in psalmody, without specifically being aware at all of prayer. Yet another may occupy himself night and day just with frequent kneelings... And occasionally, standing up from there for a while in peace in his heart, he will turn himself for a little to meditating on Scripture. Yet another person may occupy the entire day in reading Scripture...’[1]

In this passage, there are several outward forms of prayer listed, such as psalmody, reading, kneeling.

Isaac renders much value to kneelings (prostrations), considering them as one of the most important spiritual exercises.[2] In his writings we find indications both about multiple prostrations and a single extended prostration: the latter is falling down and lying prostrated for a long time. In particular, he mentions thirty and more prostrations at one time, as well as lying down before the Cross for three days.[3]

Apart from prostrations, another external action which can accompany prayer is striking one’s head upon the ground.[4] This, or a similar, practice seems to be widespread not only in the Syrian tradition, but also in Oriental monasticism in general.[5] Isaac emphasizes that one or another form of ascetical practice during prayer is suitable for every ascetic and that there is no common rule for everyone. But it is quite intriguing that he regards beating one’s head as a possible substitute for the whole sequence of daily monastic offices: ‘one man strikes his head all the day long, and does this instead of the hours of his services’.[6]

The importance of outward forms of prayer in especially emphasized by Isaac in his polemics with the Messalians. The Messalian movement (from Syriac msalyane, ‘those who pray’), which appeared in the fourth century and spread over the entire Christian Orient, rejected the Church’s sacraments and asceticism: prayer was considered as the main spiritual activity, by means of which, the Messalians claimed, one reaches different ecstatic states. Among Isaac’s writings which are dedicated to anti-Messalian polemics, chapter XIV of Part II occupies the first place: it is called ‘On Prayer and Its Outward Forms’. 

Here Isaac claims that reverential outward postures are conducive to one’s inward progress towards pure prayer.[7] It is not God who needs external signs of reverence; rather, a reverential outward posture is necessary for us so that we may be trained in a pious attitude to God.[8] The Messalians, Isaac claims, despised these outward postures; they were not concerned with prostrations and making the sign of the Cross.[9] By their neglect of outward forms of prayers, the Messalians placed themselves in opposition to the tradition of the ancient Fathers, who not only prayed in their heart, but also kept different external rules and cared for the posture of the body during prayer.[10] With great reverence and deep lowliness the ancient Fathers stood up and made many prostrations, kissing the Cross five or ten times; some of them lay prostrated before the Cross for many hours.[11] Isaac discusses in detail how it was possible for ancient monks to make fifty, sixty, one hundred or three hundred prostrations.[12]

Continuing his description of the outward forms of prayer, Isaac then comes to prayer with outstretched hands. This posture, according to him, promotes concentration of thought and a deep feeling of compunction. Isaac also emphasizes the necessity of prayer with one’s own words; this prayer, he is convinced, leads to inner spiritual insights.[13] The advantage of prayer with one’s own words is that it does not require one to recite certain texts from a book or to learn texts by heart or to repeat them. Some ancient saints, Isaac notes, did not know the psalms at all, yet their prayer, unlike that of the Messalians, reached God because of their humility.[14]

We see what the meaning for Isaac was of outward forms of prayers. He is convinced that prayer with all its outward forms is ‘the fulfillment of all virtues’.[15]

At the same time he understands that outward forms, however important they might be, are only an auxiliary means for acquiring pure prayer. Outside the context of the anti-Messalian polemic he speaks of the necessity of outward forms in a much more reserved manner. In particular, he accepts prayer while sitting, especially for old people.[16] In general, for the old and the sick, there must be special rules which would exclude bodily labour. [17]

Outward forms of prayer are necessary, but they should be measured in accordance with the strength of every person. Not only the old and infirm are freed from the necessity of performing many prostrations and other external actions of prayer: anyone who is exhausted from prayer is deserving of rest.[18] One can pray standing, sitting or kneeling; what is more important is that prayer should be accomplished with the fear of God.[19] Ultimately, Isaac comes to the conclusion that there are no outward postures that would be inevitable during prayer. A deliberate rejection of outward forms of prayer may cause one’s falling into pride and the ‘Messalian error’. However, this does not imply that it would be completely impossible to pray without outward forms. On the contrary, one should pray at any time and in any posture of the body:

...A person can be occupied with this while standing up or sitting down, while working or while walking inside his cell, while he is going to sleep, until the point when sleep takes over, while he is indoors or while he is traveling on a journey, secretly occupying himself with them within his heart; likewise, while he is constantly kneeling on the ground, or wherever he happens to be standing, even if it is not in front of the Cross...’[20]

Prayer before the Cross

In many places Isaac mentions prayer and prostrations before the Cross, kissing the Cross, and other signs of special reverence which must be shown by a Christian to the Cross. These frequent references to the Cross in Isaac’s writings are connected with the exceptional place that the Holy Cross occupies in Syriac Christianity. The SyrianChurch has never had its own tradition of icon-painting.[21] At the same time, since very early on, the SyrianChurch has surrounded the Holy Cross with devotional and liturgical veneration, as a symbol of human salvation and of God’s invisible presence. In this respect Isaac’s teaching on prayer before the Cross is of special interest as it allows us to come into contact with the ancient tradition of the Syrian Orient and to see what the importance was of the Cross in the spiritual life of Isaac’s compatriots and contemporaries.

In Chapter XI of Part II Isaac expounds the teaching on the Holy Cross as a symbol of divine dispensation and an object of religious veneration. He presents a very elaborated theology of the Cross, which is based on the idea of the power of God being constantly present in the Cross. According to Isaac, this power is nothing else but the invisible Shekhina (Presence) of God, which dwelt in the Ark of Covenant. This power was venerated by Moses and the people of Israel, who lay prostrated before the Ark[22] because of divine revelations and wonders manifested in it. The very same Shekhina is now residing in the Holy Cross: it has departed from the Old Testament Ark and entered the New Testament Cross.[23] This is why the miracles of the Apostles, which are described in the New Testament, were more powerful than those performed in Old Testament antiquity.[24] In fact, the whole of the Old Testament cult, with all its signs and wonders, was primarily a symbol pointing forward to the New Testament realities: this cult was unable to eradicate sin, whereas the Cross destroyed the power of sin and death.[25]

Speaking of the Old Testament images, Isaac asks why was it that before the wooden construction of the Ark, which was built by the hands of craftsmen, ‘adoration filled with awe was offered up continuously’, in spite of the prohibition of the Law to worship the work of human hands or any image or likeness.[26] Because in the Ark, he answers, unlike in the pagan idols, the power of God was manifested openly and the name of God was set upon it.[27] Isaac therefore sweeps aside the accusation of idolatry, the very same accusation that was brought up against the Iconodules in Byzantium in the seventh and eighth centuries. Though the context of Byzantine polemic with Iconoclasm was different, and the main argument for the veneration of icons was the Incarnation of God the Word, which made possible the depiction of God in material colours (a theme not touched upon by Isaac), in more general terms Isaac’s idea of the presence of the Godhead in material objects has much in common with what Byzantine polemicists of his time wrote on the presence of God in icons. In particular, Isaac says that if the Cross was made not ‘in the name of that Man in whom the Divinity dwells’, that is, the Incarnate God the Word, the accusation of idolatry would have been just.[28] He also alludes to the interpretation of the ‘Orthodox Fathers’, according to which the metal leaf, which was placed above the Ark,[29] was a type of the human nature of Christ.[30]

Old Testament symbols, according to Isaac, were only a type and shadow of New Testament realities: he emphasizes the superiority of the Cross over Old Testament symbols.[31] The material Cross, whose type was the Ark of the Covenant, is, in turn, the type of the eschatological Kingdom of Christ. The Cross, as it were, links the Old Testament with the New, and the New Testament, with the age to come, where all material symbols and types will be abolished. The whole economy of Christ, which began in Old Testament times and continues until the end of the world, is encompassed in the symbol of the Cross:

For the Cross is Christ’s garment just as the humanity of Christ is the garment of the Divinity.[32] Thus the Cross today serves as a type, awaiting the time when the true prototype will be revealed: then those things will not be required any longer. For the Divinity dwells inseparably in the humanity... For this reason we look on the Cross as the place belonging to the Shekhina of the Most High, the Lord’s sanctuary, the ocean of the symbols of God’s economy. This form of the Cross manifests to us, by means of the eye of faith, the symbol belonging to the two Testaments... Moreover, it is the final seal of the economy of our Saviour. Whenever we gaze on the Cross.., the recollection of our Lord’s entire economy gathers together and stands before our interior eyes’.[33]

We see that in the Syriac tradition in general and in St Isaac in particular, the Cross is in fact the main and the only sacred picture which becomes an object of liturgical veneration. If in the Byzantine tradition, different stages of Christ’s economy, as well as different heroes of Biblical and Church history (prophets, apostles, saints) might have found their incarnation in different iconographic subjects, for a Syrian Christian all this variety of iconography was replaced by the sole image of the Cross. This is an extremely concentrated and ascetic vision, which does not need different painted images. In the Syriac tradition prayer is, as it were, focused on one point, and this point is the Cross of Christ.

Isaac describes different forms of prayer before the Cross. One of them is lying prostrated before the Cross for a long time in silence.[34] Thus, lying down before the Cross is, according to Isaac, higher than all other forms of prayer as it encompasses them in itself, being an experience of extreme concentration and collectedness, which is accompanied by an intensive feeling of God’s presence.

Another form of prayer before the Cross is the prayer with the raising of the eyes and continual ‘gazing’ upon the Cross: this prayer can be accomplished while standing or sitting, as well as kneeling with the hands stretched out.[35] In one passage Isaac speaks of ‘insight into the Crucified One’ during prayer before the Cross.[36] The question here is not of the Crucifixion, the Cross with the image of the crucified Christ, but of the simple Cross without any image, which is a symbol of the invisible presence of the Crucified One. The images of the crucified Christ, which were so popular in Byzantine East and Latin West, did not spread to the Syrian tradition

Isaac also speaks of the prostrations before the Cross and kissing it many times.[37] Isaac tells us of the prayer of a solitary at whose house he happened to spend night when he was ill:

...I saw this brother’s custom of rising at night before the other brethren to begin his prayer rule. He would recite the psalms until suddenly he would leave off his rule, and falling upon his face he would strike his head upon the ground a hundred times or more with fervour that was kindled in his heart by grace. Then he would stand up, kiss the Cross of the Master, again make a prostration, again kiss the same Cross, and again throw himself upon his face... He would kiss the Cross some twenty times with fear and ardour, with love mingled with reverence, and then begin again to recite the psalms’.[38]

It is therefore very clear that the practice of the veneration of the Cross and prayer before the Cross was one of the most important constituents of Isaac’s teaching on prayer.

Reading

Another important element was the practice of prayerful recitation, or ‘reading (qeryana), which is often spoken of or described by Isaac. This term refers primarily, though not exclusively, to the reading of Scripture. For Isaac, as for the whole of ancient monastic tradition, the reading of Scripture is not so much study of the biblical text with a cognitive aim, but rather converse, encounter, revelation:  the text of the Bible is a means for a direct experience of converse with God, for a mystical encounter with God, for insights into the depths of the divine reality.

Isaac speaks of the reading of Scripture as the main means of a spiritual transformation that is accompanied by rejection of sinful life.[39] The reading in the cell includes also the writings of the Fathers of the Church on dogmatic and ascetical subjects.[40] The reading of Scripture and the Fathers, as well as the lives of the saints, is, like prayer, the converse with God. Isaac recommends alternating prayer and reading, so that the ideas drawn from Scripture fill the mind during prayer.[41]

However, ‘not all books are profitable for the concentration of the mind’[42] An ascetic should abstain, first, from reading heterodox and heretical literature.[43] In general, any kind of literature outside the circle of scriptural and patristic writings should be excluded from the daily reading of an ascetic.[44] For some monks, especially for the beginners, even the books of the Fathers on dogmatic matters are not useful, as their intellect is not cleansed from the passions: their reading should be appropriate to the spiritual stage they have reached.[45] This reflects a general attitude of ancient monasticism, according to which the only significance of reading is that it can improve one’s life. A monk is not supposed to be well-read: he is rather supposed to be pure in mind. Hence the recommendation:

The course of your reading should be parallel to the aim of your way of life... Most books that contain instructions in doctrine are not useful for purification. The reading of many diverse books brings distraction of mind upon you. Know, then that not every book that teaches about religion is useful for the purification of the consciousness and the concentration of the thoughts.[46]

Now the recommendation to abstain from reading not only secular, but also Christian dogmatic literature may seem to be a sort of obscurantism on the part of Isaac. We think, however, that Isaac does not mean that a monk is not in need of understanding Christian doctrine clearly and distinctly. His intention in the passage quoted was, first, to remind his reader of a monastic maxim, one which is very traditional indeed, that reading should correspond to life. Furthermore, Isaac probably had in mind the situation of the continuing conflict on Christological matters in which he and his contemporaries had to live. His warning against reading books on dogmatic matters should be understood in the context of this situation: he did not want the monks to be involved in any kind of theological argument, even if the question was about the truth and the true faith. ‘He who has tasted the truth will not enter into dispute concerning the truth... He is not even aroused concerning the faith’.[47] The true faith, according to Isaac, derives not from books, but from experience: it is born of purification of mind rather than of reading.

Isaac makes suggestions concerning how reading should be accomplished in practice. His first requirement for any kind of reading in the cell is that it should be done in silence and stillness.[48] The second requirement is collectedness of mind and absence of exterior thoughts.[49] The third requirement is prayer before the beginning of reading.[50]  One can see that the reading of Scripture, as well as of patristic literature, was included by Isaac in the idea of prayer. We should remember that in Christian antiquity, especially in monastic practice, reading was accomplished not with one’s eyes, but aloud, even if one was alone. Scripture was read slowly, with pauses, thinking of the meaning of each phrase and word. This culture of reading practically fell into disuse in modern time because of the necessity for one to swallow a great deal of meaningless words and glance over tens and hundreds of pages. It is clear, however, that ‘prayerful reading’ which is recommended by Isaac, that is, reading involving the maximum attention of the mind to every word, remains an ideal for everyone who wants to penetrate into the spiritual meaning of Holy Scripture. In this sense, the experience and recommendations of Isaac have not lost their validity.

The understanding of the inner and hidden meaning of Scripture is the main goal of reading. The question is not of the allegorical interpretation of the text, which was not favoured by the East-Syriac tradition, though Isaac employed it here and there. The question is of mystical insights (sukkale) into the spiritual meaning of certain words and phrases of Scripture which appear in an ascetic’s mind while reading with deep recollectedness and attention. These insights are like a ray of the sun that suddenly appears in the mind of the one who reads.[51] Isaac discerns in Holy Scripture, on the one hand, ‘the words spoken simply’, which say nothing to one’s heart and mind, and, on the other hand, ‘what is said spiritually’ and what is aimed directly to the soul of the reader.[52] This distinction does not imply that there are in Scripture both meaningful and meaningless words: it rather implies that not every word of Scripture has equal significance to each particular reader. Isaac puts the accent on the subjective attitude of a person to the text he reads: there are words and phrases that leave him cool and indifferent, and there are some which kindle the flame of the love of God in him. It is important not to miss these ‘meaningful’ verses of Scripture and not to be devoid of those spiritual insights which are contained in them.

For all his love of reading, especially that of Scripture, Isaac admits that there could be such a spiritual state when no kind of reading is necessary:

Until a man has received the Comforter, he requires inscriptions in ink to imprint the memory of good in his heart, to keep his striving for good constantly renewed by continual reading... (But) when the power of the Spirit has penetrated the noetic powers of the active soul, then in place of the laws written in ink, the commandments of the Spirit take root in his heart and a man is secretly taught by the Spirit and needs no help from sensory matter’.[53]

Isaac was not alone in his emphasis on the priority of inner spiritual experience over any formal expression of this experience, including reading of scriptural and ascetical texts: this is, in fact, one of the characteristic themes of monastic and hagiographic literature.[54] For Isaac, the text that is read is not that important: more important are the spiritual and mystical insights which one can receive by means of reading. Reading as a form of converse with God leads one to where the activity of the mind on the human level ceases as the mind enters into direct contiguity with God.

Night vigil

Nocturnal prayer is traditional in both Christian liturgical practice in general,[55] and, particularly, in the monastic practice of prayer. When recommending night vigils to monks, the teachers of ascetical life underlined the fact that because at night the whole world is immersed in sleep and there is nothing that could distract an ascetic, this is the most suitable time for prayer. ‘Let every prayer that you offer in the night’, Isaac says, ‘be more precious in your eyes than all your activities of the day’.[56] Night vigil is that ‘work filled with delight’ during which ‘the soul experiences that immortal life, and by means of this experience she puts off the vesture of darkness and receives the gifts of the Spirit’.[57]

According to Isaac, one should not begin night vigil without proper preparation, namely one should first make a prostration, make the sign of the Cross, stand in silence for a while and then pray with one’s own words.[58] The night vigil of every ascetic should include a certain ‘rule’, that is, the succession of prayers, psalms, hymns, readings and prostrations, which are prescribed to be accomplished every time when the vigil takes place. However, this rule, according to Isaac, does not need to contain a fixed number of prayers: to remain in God with one’s intellect is much more important than to adhere rigidly to a particular rule.[59] There is a ‘rule of slavery’ and a ‘rule of freedom’. The first consists of reciting a fixed number of psalms and prayers at every Office: he who is subject to this rule, ‘is inalterably bound by obligation... to follow the details of the number, length, and fixed character of the quantity (of prayers)...’[60] On the contrary, the ‘rule of liberty’ does not fix the sequence and quantity of prayers to be read and ‘does not set a time limit for each of these prayers, nor does one decide upon specific words to use’.[61]

The order of nocturnal vigil is not the same for all ascetics. There are many types of vigil and different sequences of prayers which might be read, as well as various means of attaining attention and humility. Of special interest is Isaac’s reference to the prayer with a short formula[62] and to the practice of prayer without kneeling:

Neither prayer nor a simple psalmody fully comprise a monk’s vigil. One man continues in psalmody all the night long; another passes the night in repentance, compunctionate entreaties, and prostrations; another in weeping, tears and lamentation over his sins. It is written concerning one of our Fathers that for forty years his prayer consisted of but one saying, “As a man I have sinned, but Thou, as God, forgive me”... Another man passes the night in glorifying God and in reading marmyata,[63] and between each marmita he illumines and refreshes himself with reading from the Bible until he is rested. And again another makes for himself the rule not to bend his knees, not even in the prayer that concludes a marmita, though this be customary during vigils, and he passes the entire night in the unbroken silence.[64]

The aim of the night vigil is spiritual illumination: nothing makes the mind so radiant and joyous, as do continual vigils.[65] Isaac calls night vigil ‘the light of the thinking (tar‘itha)’, by which ‘the understanding (mad‘a) is exalted, the mind (re‘yana) is collected, and the intellect (hauna) takes flight and gazes at spiritual things and by prayer is rejuvenated and shines brightly’.[66] This is a unique passage in Isaac where all four Syriac terms for the mental faculties of man are employed together. By this Isaac probably wants to emphasize that night prayer can embrace an entire man and can totally transfigure the whole of man’s intellectual sphere. Nocturnal prayer has, in Isaac, an all-embracing character and is regarded as a universal means for attaining to the illumination of mind.

Prayer for the world

Isaac of Nineveh was a solitary by vocation. Yet in his mind the whole of the universe was present. This is the paradox of a solitary life: withdrawing from people, a solitary does not forget them; renouncing the world, he does not cease to pray for the world. Isaac loved solitude and stillness, but any kind of closing into himself, as well as the thought of his own salvation in isolation from that of his brethren, was entirely alien to him. He possessed that ‘merciful heart’ which is characterized by having pity for all creatures, including not only Christians, but also apostates, animals and demons. His personal prayer grew, like liturgical prayer, to a cosmic scale, embracing not only neighbours and strangers, but also the whole of humanity and the whole universe.

This is especially clear in Chapter V of Part II, which contains a lengthy prayer for the whole world. Isaac begins with the thanksgiving to God for His Incarnation,[67] asking God to hold him worthy of insight ‘into the mystery of the killing’ of His beloved Son.[68] After a long and expressive prayer to Christ,[69] he turns to prayer for monks and solitaries, both living and departed. This is when his prayer acquires that universal ring which characterizes the eucharistic anaphoras of the Eastern Church. It is not by mere chance that the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ is referred to in his prayer:

May there be remembered, Lord, on Your holy altar at the fearful moment when Your Body and Your Blood are sacrificed for the salvation of the world, all the fathers and brethren who are on mountains, in caves, in ravines, cliffs, rugged and desolate places, who are hidden from the world and it is only known to You where they are - those who have died and those still living and ministering before You in body and soul, You the Holy One Who dwell in the holy ones...[70] O King of all worlds and of all the Orthodox Fathers who, for the sake of the truth of the faith, have endured exile and afflictions at the hands of persecutors, who in monasteries, convents, deserts and the habitations of the world, everywhere and in every place, have made it their care to please You with labours for the sake of virtue...[71]

After the prayer for monks and solitaries, one for the sick and captives follows.[72] Then Isaac prays for deliverance of the Church from persecution and inner conflicts, as well as for the preservation of love and unanimity between ‘kings and priests’ (i.e. between the state and the Church). In his final petitions, Isaac remembers those who have gone astray and those who have departed this life without repentance and true faith:

I beg and beseech You, Lord, grant to all who have gone astray a true knowledge of You, so that each and every one may come to know Your glory.[73] In the case of those who have passed from this world lacking a virtuous life and having had no faith, be an advocate for them, Lord, for the sake of the body which You took from them, so that from the single united body of the world we may offer up praise to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the kingdom of heaven, an unending source of eternal delight’.[74]

This last petition, for those who died without having true faith, shows that the idea of the impossibility of prayer for the departed non-Christians was totally alien to Isaac. He did not imagine the Kingdom of heaven which would be accessible only to certain chosen people, whereas the rest of mankind would remain outside of it. As we can see, Isaac regards the whole world as a single body, in which every human being is a member. In the age to come, the whole universe will be transformed into the Body of Christ, which is the Church of those redeemed by Him.

Thus, Isaac is convinced that Christians should pray for all people, regardless of their virtues or religion: with suffering we should make our supplication to God for the whole of the universe and for all human beings.[75]

The highest stages of prayer

Among the different kinds of prayer mentioned by Isaac, meditation is the one which is regarded as one of the highest states of prayer. Isaac uses several terms to designate this type of prayer, including three which are characteristic for the whole of the East-Syrian tradition: herga, meditation; renya, reflection; ‘uhdana, recollection, remembrance. Each of these three terms, for all their difference in nuances, may refer to what Isaac called herga db-alaha, meditation on God. This meditation is closely connected with prayer, and one cannot easily separate the one from the other: prayer sometimes gives birth to meditation, and at other times it is born from meditation.[76] Meditation on God includes remembrance of the whole economy of God concerning humanity, beginning with the creation of man and finishing with the Incarnation.[77] At the same time, meditation on God also includes pondering upon the ascetical life and Christian virtues: this meditation, according to Isaac, leads one to spiritual illumination.[78] This examining of virtues and their different kinds, which is suggested by Isaac, is a sort of rather abstract meditation on moral issues. It is, however, necessary for an ascetic to be accomplished in this, as it provides a theoretical background to his virtuous living. Meditation on God, which is accompanied by total forgetfulness of this world, leads one to the state of spiritual contemplation, when one penetrates into the ‘dark cloud’ of God’s glory,[79] and becomes like the angels.[80] ‘Luminous meditation’ on God is one of the highest stages of prayer: from thence, there is only one step to mystical ‘wonder’, a state when the intellect is totally withdrawn from this world and entirely captivated by God.[81] In some instances Isaac equates ‘luminous meditation’ on God with ‘pure prayer’, which is ‘culmination of every kind of collectedness of mind and of excellence of prayer’.[82]

The most characteristic idea of Isaac concerning the highest stages of prayer is that at these stages prayer in fact ceases, giving birth to mystical states of ‘spiritual prayer’, contemplation-theoria, and inebriation by the divine love.

According to Isaac, the difference between prayer and the state which begins beyond its borders is that, during pure prayer, a person’s mind is full of different movements (zaw‘e, stirrings), such as the prayers for deliverance from trials, whereas in the beyond-the-borders state, the mind is free from all movements. There is pure prayer and ‘spiritual prayer’ (slota ruhanayta): the last phrase is borrowed from John of Apamea and other early ascetical writers, and is understood by Isaac as the state which is beyond the borders of pure prayer. ‘Spiritual prayer’ does not involve any movement of the mind: it is the very prayer with which the saints of the age to come pray, when ‘their intellects have been swallowed up by the Spirit’.[83]

Is this complete cessation of the intellectual activity which Isaac calls ‘stillness of mind’ not a sort of Buddhist Nirvana, a migration beyond the borders of every personal existence, a full loss of personal self-consciousness? The answer must be negative. In Isaac, ‘stillness of mind’ is not a synonym for unconscious and insensible oblivion: there is a positive element in Isaac’s ‘stillness’, the capture of the mind by God. Unlike Nirvana, ‘stillness of mind’ is an extremely intense state of the mind, which finds itself entirely under the power of God and is drawn into undiscovered depths of the Spirit.[84] The question concerns, therefore, the absence of the movements and desires of the intellect, but not the loss of personal existence: on the contrary, in the stillness of mind there is an intense personal communion of a human person with personal God.

‘Spiritual prayer’, which begins beyond the borders of pure prayer, is the descent of mind to a state of peace and stillness: it is synonymous with te‘oryia-contemplation.[85] The term te‘orya (from Greek theoria) is borrowed by Isaac from the language of Evagrius and Dionysius the Areopagite. Isaac uses this term as a synonym for the ‘vision of God’. He speaks of the supernatural state of the soul, which is ‘her movement in the contemplation of the transubstantial Deity’.[86] In this state, the soul ‘rushes forward’ and ‘becomes as one drunken in awestruck wonder of her continual solicitude for God’.[87]

The term ‘wonder’ (temha or tehra, which both correspond to the Greek ekstasis), is closely linked to the states of the ‘stillness of mind’ and ‘spiritual contemplation’. The state of wonder is born from a prayerful meditation.[88] It may also come out of the reading of Scripture,[89] or from the recollection of God.[90] It is characterised by forgetfulness of oneself, losing self-control and one’s mind being entirely ‘captured’ by God.[91] It can be accompanied by a weakening of the bodily members,[92] a loss of the sense of one’s corporeality and the withdrawal of the mind from the body.[93]

Isaac often speaks of the joy which arises in a person who is in a state of wonder. It is a supernatural and divine joy that has come about from a feeling of freedom and love of God, and is also accompanied by a liberation from fear.[94] To describe this unspeakable and unearthly joy, Isaac uses the term ‘inebriation’ (rawwayuta), which is intended to refer to an especially strong experience of the love of God, accompanied by joy and spiritual elevation in a state of mystical ecstasy. The theme of ‘sober inebriation’ is a central one in the whole of the Christian mystical tradition, from Origen and Gregory of Nyssa onwards. In the Syriac tradition, this theme is outlined as early as in Ephrem and John of Apamea; among the writers of the seventh century, it was developed by Dadisho and Symeon d’Taibutheh. For Isaac the Syrian, the theme of spiritual inebriation is a synthesis of the whole system of his mystical theology: when analyzing it, we can perceive the most characteristic traits of his mysticism.

In one of the chapters of Part II, speaking of the state of wonder which begins beyond the borders of prayer, Isaac uses the image of wine to describe the spiritual exaltation which grips a person:

From here onwards he finds the senses continuously stilled and the thoughts bound fast with the bond of wonder; he is continually filled with a vision replete with the praise that takes place without the tongue’s movement. Sometimes, again, while prayer remains for its part, the intellect is taken away from it as if into heaven, and tears fall like fountains of waters, involuntarily soaking the whole face... Very often he will not be allowed even to pray: this in truth is the state of cessation above prayer when he remains continually in amazement at God’s work of creation - like people who are crazed by wine... Not only do the lips cease from the flow of prayer and become still, but the heart too dries up from all thoughts, due to the amazement that alights upon it... Blessed is the person who has entered this door in the experience of his own soul, for all the power of ink, letters and phrases is too feeble to indicate the delight of this mystery’.[95]

This description of spiritual ‘inebriation’ illustrates in a very striking manner that the mystical experience which is described by Isaac is of a very active and dynamic nature. The ultimate goal of any prayer is in fact this spiritual state, when prayer ceases and gives place to what Isaac calls ‘pure prayer’, ‘meditation’, ‘wonder’ or ‘inebriation’. In this state, a person’s intellect is ravished, and he remains silent before the Mystery that surpasses all human understanding.

Based on: The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev (Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2000). To order the book, click here 

Abbreviations

B = Mar Isaacus Ninevita, De prefectione religiosa, quam edidit Paulus Bedjan (Leipzig, 1909).

I = The Ascetical Homilies of St Isaac the Syrian [translated by D.Miller], (Boston, Massachusetts, 1984).

II = Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian). ‘The Second Part’, chapters IV-XLI, translated by Sebastian Brock, CSCO, vol.555 (Scriptores syri, t.225), (Louvain, 1995).

"THEOSIS" IN THE HOMILIES OF SAINT ISAAC THE SYRIAN
by Father Michael Gillis (Orthodox)
click on the following:

my source: Ancient Faith Radio

THE THREE DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE: AN EXPLORATION OF "THEOSIS" IN THE HOMILIES OF ST ISAAC THE SYRIAN - I

THE THREE DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE: AN EXPLORATION OF "THEOSIS" IN THE HOMILIES OF ST ISAAC THE SYRIAN - II

THE THREE DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE: AN EXPLORATION OF "THEOSIS" IN THE HOMILIES OF ST ISAAC THE SYRIAN - III

THE THREE DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE: AN EXPLORATION OF "THEOSIS" IN THE HOMILIES OF ST ISAAC THE SYRIAN - IV

THE THREE DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE: AN EXPLORATION OF "THEOSIS" IN THE HOMILIES OF ST ISAAC THE SYRIAN - V

This saint whose relevance to the Christian life has been recognised more and more by Catholic and Orthodox alike has another relevance for our day: he was a Syrian, a member of what is now called the Assyrian Church of the East which was not in canonical communion  with either East or West.   If such great sanctity can exist outside canonical communion, then that tells us something about the Church and about how we treat churches outside our own communion.   However, we are still trying to discern what it is we have to learn.

THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH IN MOSCOW

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IN ORTHODOXY 

by Father Lev Gillet

ANOTHER STEP ON THE WAY TO UNITY

11/29/2014 

Phanar: The turning point for ecumenism

 my source: Vatican Insider

   

A banner for Francis' meeting with Bartholomew(©Reuters)

(©REUTERS) A BANNER FOR FRANCIS' MEETING WITH BARTHOLOMEW

The Catholic Church “does not intend to make any demands” to restore full communion with Orthodox Christians. Pope Francis. Prospects for the new millennium. The “Ratzinger Proposal” is still echoed today

GIANNI VALENTE

ISTANBUL

In the efforts to achieve full unity with Orthodox Christians, the Catholic Church “does not intend to make any demands, other than the profession of a common faith”. The Bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, said this in the speech he pronounced before Patriarch Bartholomew at the Phanar today. He did so in evocative setting of the Divine Liturgy celebrated for the Feast of St. Andrew’s. His words were few but to the point and suggested an unprecedented step laden with consequences for future relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches.

Pope Francis’ words suggest that the current Successor of Peter believes communion between Catholic and Orthodox Christians is possible right now, without the need to impose any theological or legal pre-conditions on his Orthodox brothers. The main reason for this is that the Orthodox Churches “have real sacraments and above all, they have the priesthood and the Eucharist by virtue of the apostolic succession,” the Pope said quoting the Second Vatican Council. In Francis’ opinion, all that is needed to restore full communion between the Churches is to recognise that they share and profess the same faith, the faith of the Apostles.

With the words pronounced at the Phanar after decades of noble intentions and principles declarations, Francis gave Orthodox Churches the perfect chance to come out of the cocoon-like and sometimes gelatinous environment of ecumenical good manners and take the first concrete steps to overcome the most serious effects of the split that came about in the second millennium.

Francis points toward the common path to be taken by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, giving pointers as to how to resolve the historical and doctrinal problems that have accumulated over centuries of division. “Bearing in mind what the Scriptures teach us and the experiences of the first millennium, we are ready to search together for ways in which we can guarantee the unity of the Church which is so necessary given the current circumstances.”

The reference to the first millennium – which Patriarch Bartholomew also made in his recent interview with Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire – is not intended as an expression of a nostalgic wish to turn back time and eliminate the second Christian millennium. Instead, it evokes the image of a Church that did not see itself as a self-founding historical subject but aimed to establish its own relevance in history. A Church that recognised it was growing and flourishing as a reflection of Christ’s presence and grace. Not as a result of the supremacy of heads of Churches which is based on the order of precedence established by the transmission belt of ecclesiastical power. This is why the Church Fathers did not feel the need to elaborate a systematic ecclesiology. They did not have the problem of focusing on the Church, it was not the ecclesiastical institution they were primarily interested in or focused on.

The bold evangelical message contained in Francis’ words comes through in the comparison and continuity with other proposals and words employed by the Catholic Church to express its desire for unity with its Orthodox brothers. In the Ut unum sint encyclical, John Paul II recognised that he had a responsibility to to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.”

In the same passage, the Po;lish Pope also recalled that “for a whole millennium Christians were united in a “brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and disciplkine arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator." Wojtyla’s statements were based on a way of exercising the papal primacy which in the second millennium took on forms that were not acceptable to the Orthodox Churches. Furthermore, the Pope gave no concrete signs of putting into practice what was said in the encyclical.

Now, Pope Francis’ words seem to echo the so-called “Ratzinger Proposal”, the proposal penned in 1987 by the cardinal theologian who then rose to the Throne of Peter. In this proposal he wrote: “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.”

It is above all the realistic way in which Pope Francis views the condition of the faith and the mission of the Church in the world today that shows how the evangelical and essential perspective adopted in the early centuries of Christianity is relevant and efficient for ecumenism today. “In today’s world, voices are being raised which we can it ignore. They are asking for our Churches to experience the full meaning of being disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The Supreme Pontiff referred especially to the poor, to victims of conflicts and to young people, many of whom have sadly “lost hope” and are at the mercy of today’s “dominant culture”

Unity among Christians is not some trivial obsession among clerical circles to boost their image so that they can justify their existence. It is not an attempt to “close ranks” for ideological reasons or reasons linked to worldly dominance. Christian unity is necessary in order for the Church to fulfil its mission for the benefit of all men and women in the world. Pope Francis’ passion for Christian unity stems from the concern he feels as a shepherd. This is why his moves are characterised by long-sightedness and resoluteness. If the salvation of souls is at stake, it is pointless and harmful to lose time fighting over who has the right to supreme leadership.

So, while reminding everyone of the vital importance of the Church’s Apostolic mission at present, Pope Francis is also efficiently fulfilling the role which Christ gave to Peter and his Successors, as repeated throughout the entire Tradition of the Church: he is guiding his brothers and sisters in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, according to the circumstances of his time. The Pope – as Joseph Ratzinger said on many occasions – is not a spiritual “emperor”. His “power” cannot be likened to the worldly power of monarchies and global superpowers.

For now, Pope Francis’ calls for Christian unity seems light years away from the subtle political and psychological expressions of disapproval from some clerical circles that continue to sabotage the process of leading to full unity between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Even the latest session of theological dialogue on the primacy issue, held in Amman last September, ground to a halt, mostly because of the mistrust and resentment felt among the representatives of the various Orthodox Churches. Other opportunities to take real and decisive steps toward unity between Catholics and Orthodox also went down the drain. Now, however, Francis is opening new doors. He has never hidden the fact that this is going to require patience, a virtue the Pope has often talked about in his morning homilies in St. Martha’s House. The same very patience which the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras had called for. “Unity,” Bartholomew’s predecessor come “will come. It will be a historical miracle. When? This we cannot know. But we must prepare for this. Because a miracle is like God: it is always imminent.”

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/11/30/francis-rolls-out-social-gospel-case-for-catholicorthodox-unity/#begin_comments

Pope Francis rolls out ‘social gospel’ case for Catholic/Orthodox unity

By John L. Allen Jr.

Associate editor November 30, 2014

ISTANBUL, Turkey — Sometimes what a pope doesn’t say can be just as important as what he does, and such was the case in Turkey on Sunday as Pope Francis laid out his vision for unity between Catholics and Orthodox Christianity.

Francis offered several motives for pursuing closer ties, yet conspicuously absent was the imperative most often cited by more conservative Catholics and Orthodox: Making a common stand against secularism, especially permissive sexual morality.

In effect, the pope’s case rested not on the wars of culture, but on the social gospel.

The official reason for the pontiff’s Nov. 28-30 trip to Turkey was to meet the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, who’s considered the “first among equals” of Orthodox leaders.

On Sunday, the pontiff took part in an Orthodox liturgy at the Church of St. George in the Phanar, the headquarters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which provided him with a platform to lay out his ecumenical vision.

Francis voiced clear support for “full communion,” meaning that Orthodox and Catholics would recognize a common set of teachings and sacraments and a common governance structure. In essence, they would see one another as members of a single Church.

Knowing that concerns about papal power have long been a stumbling block, Francis insisted that full communion “does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation.”

He then ticked off three reasons why Orthodox and Catholics should come together: to defend the poor, to end war and heal conflicts, and to help young people to see past materialism and to embrace a “true humanism.”

“There are too many women and men who suffer from severe malnutrition, growing unemployment, the rising numbers of unemployed youth, and from increasing social exclusion,” Francis said.

“We cannot remain indifferent before the cries of our brothers and sisters,” he said. “They ask us to fight, in the light of the Gospel, the structural causes of poverty: inequality, the shortage of dignified work and housing, and the denial of their rights as members of society and as workers.”

He was equally passionate about war.

“Taking away the peace of a people, committing every act of violence — or consenting to such acts — especially when directed against the weakest and defenseless, is a profoundly grave sin against God,” he said. “The cry of the victims of conflict urges us to move with haste along the path of reconciliation and communion between Catholics and Orthodox.”

In a last-minute addition to his text, Francis also recalled the victims of an attack on a mosque in Kano, Nigeria, on Friday that left more than 100 people dead, calling it a “very grave sin against God.”

In a joint declaration that Francis and Bartholomew signed today, they added one more motive for coming together: Defending persecuted believers in the traditional heartland of the faith, saying “we cannot resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians.”

It’s instructive to compare the pope’s vision with the arguments laid out by a prominent Russian Orthodox leader who was invited to address a recent Synod of Bishops in the Vatican.

On that occasion, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, argued that Orthodox believers and Catholics must stand should-to-shoulder against the secular tide.

In today’s society, Hilarion said, “there is an increasingly aggressive propagation of the idea of moral relativism applied also to the institution of the family held sacred by all of humanity.”

Among the challenges, he said, are “the disintegration of families, abortion, the legalization of same-sex unions, and the spread of technologies unacceptable from a Christian point of view such as ‘surrogate motherhood’.”

Hilarion called on Orthodox and Catholics “to join efforts and come out as a united front for the noble goal of protecting the family when confronted by the challenges of the secular world.”

The conclusion Francis and Hilarion reached is the same, which is support for unity, but the logic getting them there is clearly different.

For some time, tradition-minded Catholics have generally prioritized outreach to the Orthodox and to Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglicans or mainline Protestants, in part because they find views such as those expressed by Hilarion closer to their own.

Instead, Francis on Sunday laid out a version of the argument for ecumenism that might be called a social gospel — a Christian peace-and-justice agenda.

It’s an approach that’s congenial to Bartholomew, who among other things has been dubbed the “Green Patriarch” for his strong environmental concern. How well it will play in more traditional centers of Orthodox opinion, such as the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches, remains to be seen.

In terms of population, Russia is by far the biggest among the Orthodox churches. Of the roughly 225 million Orthodox believers worldwide, some 150 million, or two-thirds, are Russian Orthodox.

To some extent, the outcome may depend on whether Catholics and Orthodox come to see the contrasting visions presented by Francis and Hilarion as an either/or choice, or a both/and combination. If it’s the former, ecumenism may still face an uphill climb; if the latter, it could attract a broad coalition in favor of rapid progress.

The obstacles to union are not only on the Orthodox side.   We are probably not yet ready to own up to, clearly formulate, accept and proclaim the logical consequences of this position of Pope Francis, which is also the position of  Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and is a consequence of accepting the eucharistic ecclesiology of Vatican II.   Another consequence was seen by those who followed the Synod on the Family and read the contribution of Cardinal Walter Kasper.

What are these consequences?

As I have written before, The Constitution on the Liturgy states that the liturgy is the goal of all the Church's activity and the source of all its powers. Pius XI said that "the liturgy is the chief organ of the ordinary magisterium of the Church."  Moreover, the liturgy is the product of the synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church, from the time of the Apostles to the present day. Hence,  the liturgy that is celebrated in apostolic succession is both the source of Tradition and its main organ of interpretation in the ordinary magisterium.  

But the liturgy is an activity, not of the universal Church in the way an ecumenical council is, but of the local Church.   Hence, Catholic Tradition takes various forms as it is expressed in the different liturgical families, and these families have been formed according to their own history and culture.   However, in so far as they are true to their own tradition as it comes down from the Apostles, to that extent their ecclesial life reflects the common Apostolic Tradition and is basically identical to the ecclesial life of all other Apostolic churches, in spite of the external differences.   Just as the one Gospel is found in four gospels, so the one Tradition is expressed in various liturgical traditions.

Once this is accepted, then it must also be accepted that separation from Rome by itself is not enough to separate a church from Catholic Tradition: only separation from its apostolic past does that.   It must also be accepted that, in so far as a separated Church is living the tradition it has received, it is being guided by the same Holy Spirit that guides the Catholic Church, with its source in the Eucharist.

It must be therefore acknowledged that schism between Apostolic Churches has worked havoc, in spite of the fact that each enjoys the fullness of Catholicism that has its source in the Eucharist. This is because, although the councils and dogmatic decrees of the Roman Catholic Church are preserved from error and express Catholic Tradition with the aid of the Holy Spirit, they reflect the Truth as seen by the Latin tradition and presuppose a Latin western context.   Thus, in contrast to Vatican I that treated the universal Church from a legal point of view and thus judged ecumenical councils only by their legal status, acceptance by the Catholic Church of eucharistic ecclesiology forces us to distinguish the greater ecumenical quality of general councils before the schism that codified the faith of both East and West in union, and those after the schism that codified only the Western tradition. Even more important, as ecumenical councils are not imposed from outside, but bear witness to what the liturgical life of the Church expresses among the local churches represented in the council, they cannot be imposed on those traditions that were not represented in the council: hence the article. 

 However, if we wish to grasp the fullness of Tradition in all its forms, we must take notice of the ordinary magisterium of other Apostolic Churches, even those separated from the Apostolic See, just as they must take ours seriously. This is what Cardinal Kasper did in his treatment of how married and divorced people should be treated. This is being done in our ecumenical discussions.

However, there is a difficulty.   As David Bentley-Hart writes in "The Myth of Schism":

 Simply said, a Catholic who looks eastward should find nothing to which to object, because what he sees is the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Councils (but—here’s the rub—for him, this means the first seven of twenty-one, at least according to the definition of Oecumenical Council bequeathed the Roman Church by Robert Bellarmine). When an Orthodox Christian turns his eyes westward, however, he sees many elements that appear novel to him: the filioque clause, the way in which papal primacy is articulated, Purgatory, etc. Our divisions do truly concern doctrine, and this problem admits of no immediately obvious remedy, because both churches are so fearfully burdened by infallibility. And we need to appreciate that this creates an essential asymmetry in the Orthodox and Catholic approaches to the ecumenical enterprise. No Catholic properly conscious of the teachings of his Church would be alarmed by what the Orthodox Church would bring into his communion—he would find it sound and familiar, and would not therefore suspect for a moment that reunion had in any way compromised or diluted his Catholicism. But to an Orthodox Christian, inasmuch as the Roman Church does make doctrinal assertions absent from his tradition, it may well seem that to accept reunion with Rome would mean becoming a Roman Catholic, and so ceasing to be Orthodox. Hence it would be unreasonable to expect the Eastern and Western churches to approach ecumenism from the same vantage: the historical situations of the churches are simply too different. 

 While Catholicism has no difficulty in accepting Orthodoxy, he says, because it is its past, Orthodoxy finds so much in Catholicism that does not appear in its tradition.   The reason for this is the very different histories of the two churches.   They are responding to two totally different situations.   Nevertheless, both traditions come, out of the fullness of Catholicism that is the Eucharist. There is only one Eucharist across time and place, and all who celebrate it are united to one another in each celebration, whether they like it or not, because this is the work of the Holy Spirit. At this level the Church CANNOT be divided. The celebration of the Eucharist is the common source of Tradition in all its forms, even though both our traditions have been somewhat distorted by the schism that divides us. Therefore, eucharistic ecclesiology requires both sides to dig deep into their respective   traditions to find what corresponds in it to the idiosyncrases of the other side.   This is what is happening on the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome.   If there is a disagreement, then both sides examine their pasts to find common ground.   In the process, both Catholicism and Orthodoxy can be enriched as they interpret present differences in the light of the common ground.  In fact, however the papacy may look at the end of the process, it does correspond to a weakness in Orthodoxy where patriarchs jostle for power like secular states and where a large number of ethnic bishops rule a relatively small number of  faithful divided by nationality in America and Europe.   Also, the Orthodox insistence on synodality does correspond to a weakness in Catholicism.   Both sides are wounded by the schism and, as Pope Francis introduces synodality at various levels of church life and many Orthodox theologians recognise the inadequacy of the Orthodox Church's ability to operate as a single body at a world-wide level, hence the synod in 2016, and acknowledge a place for an effective Roman primacy, it can be seen that the process of seeking unity is already beginning to heal us.

  Having said that, there is still a long way to go because we are dealing with holy things that cannot be taken for granted and with convictions that cannot simply be dismissed.

Another difficulty is given to us by John Sanidopoulos in an article in his blog "Mystagogy" called, "The Mutually Exclusive Goals of Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew."   He sums up Pope Francis' goal in the pope's own words:

"Dear friends, all this makes us understand that Christian communities recognize in the bishop a great gift, and are called to nourish a sincere and profound communion with him, beginning with the priests and deacons. No Church is healthy if the faithful, the deacons and the priests are not united to the bishop. This Church, that is not united to the bishop, is a sick Church. Jesus wanted this union of all the faithful with the bishop, including the deacons and priests. And this they do aware that it is precisely in the bishop that the bond is made visible with each Church, with the Apostles and with all other communities, united to their bishops and the Pope in the one Church of the Lord Jesus, that is our Hierarchical Holy Mother Church..... There is another precious element that deserves to be pointed out. When Jesus chose and called the Apostles, He did not think of them as separate from one another, each one on his own, but together, because they were to stay with Him, united, like a single family. Furthermore, bishops also constitute one single College, gathered around the Pope, who is the guardian and guarantor of this profound communion that was so close to Jesus' heart and to his Apostles' too. How beautiful it is, then, when bishops, with the Pope, express this collegiality and always seek to be better servants to the faithful, better servants in the Church! We recently experienced it in the Assembly of the Synod on the Family. Just think of all the bishops spread around the world who, despite living in widely different places, cultures, sensibilities and traditions — one bishop said to me the other day that it takes him more than 30 hours by plane to come to Rome — they each feel part of the other and they become an expression of the intimate bond, in Christ, between their communities. And in the common prayer of the Church, all bishops place themselves together in listening to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit, paying profound attention to man and to the signs of the times (cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes , n. 4).

On the other hand, Patriarch Bartholomew expressed himself thus:

With regard to between all the Orthodox churches and the heterodox, they have as an ultimate purpose the fulfilment of the will and command of the Lord "that all may be one (Jn 17, 21).   Now they contribute to societal cooperation and witness to the truth and they are aimed at mutual cooperation and for the acceptance in time by the heterodox of the one Orthodox faith.  We do not aim, as it is written in Bulgaria and elsewhere,  towards the creation of  a commonly acceptable conglomeration of beliefs.  That is, we are not pursuing through the so-called ecumenical movement the acceptance of a Christian syncretistic confession, but a deepening in the Orthodox Christian faith and in societal cooperation with those who invoke the name of Christ.   Naturally, we do not fear, as Orthodox, who have the fullness of truth, that we will be affected by the views of our heterodox brethren in doctrinal issues.....With this strategy, we are not betraying Orthodoxy, as criticized, nor do we support ecumenistic concepts, but we proclaim to the heterodox and to all the truth of Orthodoxy.  

7

John Sanidopoulos, who is against the dialogue, believes he has struck a mortal blow against the process by pointing out that, while Pope Francis regards the Orthodox Church as sick and want it to join the Catholic Church, Patriarch Bartholomew considers the Catholic Church to be heterodox and wants it to accept the fullness of Orthodoxy.   Hence the process is doomed from the start.

In fact, all the article is saying is that the Pope is truly a Catholic and the Patriarch is truly Orthodox, and both accept the theological pre-suppositions of their own churches: the ecumenical dialogue would be useless if that were not the case.   However, I would deny that the two goals are mutually exclusive because the means to their accomplishment are identical:

1. We must love one another as is stated before the Creed in the Byzantine Liturgy, "Let us love one another so that with one mind we may profess.."  Faith is knowledge born of religious love, God's love for us manifested in the Christian Mystery and our love for God and for each other as we participate in the Christian Mystery.  With indifference, the opposite of religious love, comes misunderstanding and the rupture of communion.   Both sides have been guilty of that indifference, and both sides suffer from the lack of communion which is its fruit.   We must reach out in love to one another.  Our lack of communion contradicts our common participation in the Christian Mystery celebrated in the Mass or Divine Liturgy which we sadly celebrate apart.
2. Catholic and Orthodox theologians look at our differences in the light of the Tradition of the first thousand years in order to go behind them.   They try to take a new look at them, trying to find where they complement each other.   Both sides are confident, like Patriarch Bartholomew, that Tradition in the 21st century is guided by the same Spirit as in the twenty first century, and, when there is an impasse as in modern times, we may find a solution by taking another look at the past. Neither side believes that revelation is "a commonly acceptable 'conglomeration' of beliefs": they are concerned with our common participation in and understanding of the Christian Mystery.  Also, neither side has any intention of imposing something on the other which was not in their tradition before the break.  I believe that it is only a matter of time before the "filioque" is taken out of the Creed.   It was only included under pressure from the Holy Roman Emperors who were not actually overflowing with Christian love for the Greeks: the sooner the better.
3. For true friendship to develop between us, we must take part in projects together, both in bearing witness to the Resurrection in the modern world - in the Middle East, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants are bearing witness to Christ together by shedding their blood - and by seeking the good of humankind together in love.

I am sure that this ecumenical quest is inspired by the Holy Spirit and will one day be recognised by all as our common Tradition at work, re-integrating itself.  Should this happen, the Pope may well interpret it as the Orthodox becoming fully Catholic, and the Patriarch of the day may well consider it as the Catholic Church becoming Orthodox; or Rome and Constantinople may, like me, consider it the moment when, after all the half-truths and misunderstandings have been removed, they look at each other and discover themselves.

IS CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DIALOGUE IN DANGER?

CALLED TO BE ONE

One of the Orthodox Archbishops who accompanied the Patriarch during the visit had met our monastic community the week before when we attended the Divine Liturgy in Lima.o