Asceticism is.... Everything!

[尼古拉前执事]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Can you imagine how different the world today would be if Luther, Henry & Calvin, instead of protesting by creating new Faiths went to Orthodoxy instead? God Bless!

[Justin Kissel]

Just a few quick notes...

seraphim reeves

I think this is one major area that people interested in comparative religion studies neglect, when comparing/contrasting Orthodox Christianity with non-Orthodox creeds. There is, simply put, no Orthodox Christianity without long vigils, lots of standing, lots of protstrations, fasting, etc. These things can be called "exteriors" to a certain extent, but collectively they are the "bits and pieces" that make up a single body, that body being the Orthodox Christian "way".

Unfortunately, many things that would be called "ascetical disciplines" probably seem like "externals" to many in the Church today (and they are many times brushed aside as "traditions with a small t"). We (here in the west) talk about "The mind of the fathers," "deification," etc., but when it comes time to fill these words with content, we seem to fall short. The solutions are no secret, we just have to be willing to apply ourselves. (I include myself in this, of course)

For those who can endure it, it goes beyond abstinance from food, but abstinance from marriage and natural family life entirely, and for those who can endure further, even regular human companionship (such as was the case of many of the Prophets and of hermits).

Good point, and one that is necessary especially in our current context.

Regarding Augustine, I often hear negative things about him (many times in the form of straw men), and admittedly have even read some of his stuff that seemed to me to be unorthodox. But then I read men like Georges Florovsky, who seemed to like Augustine, and so I have to believe there there's something to him.

[cparks]

In short, whenever I read something dumping on St.Augustine, my little "warning" light goes off and often (though not always) I find my suspicions confirmed.

Not to worry, Seraphim. I agree with everything you've said; we're on the same page here. It's just that I'm the type that refuses to give up certain phrases, like "Augustinian framework," just because of a few crackpots.

I can use the term "Augustinian framework" because it's widely acknowledged that he's the largest mind in western civilization in the past 1,600 years (Bertrand Russell's treatment of him in his History of Western Philosophy is fascinating to read as an Orthodox). Luther was an Augustinian monk who despised the writings of St John Chrysostom and Calvin was totally dependant upon St Augustine's responses to Pelagius and the Council of Orange for his theology.

The point, of course, is western theology's dependance on him, regardless of what he got right or wrong (according to the Church). While it's obviously true that St Augustine was not a scholastic and may very well have told Anselm to "get a grip," or something to that effect, the point is that if you pull one Father out of Orthodoxy, you have many others. This is simply not the case with western theology. Western theology has been stuck in the Pelagian controversy for the past 1,600 years...

It's doesn't make St Augustine evil, it doesn't make him a heretic and it doesn't make him someone to avoid. As a matter of fact, City of God is on my reading list. What it does mean is that the west made itself so utterly dependant on the thinking of one Father that it can't comprehend the thinking of so many other Fathers.

They should have listened to St John Cassian!

Cheers,

Chrysostomos

[Seraphim Reeves]

Paradosis,

Unfortunately, many things that would be called "ascetical disciplines" probably seem like "externals" to many in the Church today (and they are many times brushed aside as "traditions with a small t"). We (here in the west) talk about "The mind of the fathers," "deification," etc., but when it comes time to fill these words with content, we seem to fall short. The solutions are no secret, we just have to be willing to apply ourselves. (I include myself in this, of course)

That's the problem, in most human endevours; lot's of talk, very little action.

However, it seems to be a really big problem with modern Orthodox academia; we're being taught by men who typically have little experience in what they speak, who in turn were taught by men of similar disposition. Obviously I'm not totally opposed to the establishment of academic programs and "seminary" training for clergy. Indeed, a great deal of harm comes from having woefully ignorant Priests. That said, we have to keep in mind that much of the seminary system that we have in the Orthodox world is based on the Roman Catholic seminary system. The whole notion of a "seminary" began during the middle ages in the west; prior to that clerics were gradually educated and learned the services under the watch of their Bishop and older Presbyters. Thus, we shouldn't apply more esteem or expectations of automatic health to the "academia" approach to priestly formation than is warranted.

Of course, the "great teachers" almost without fail are those who teach from the wealth of experience, or the experience of their fathers... a living tradition, not simply abstract theory.

It's going to be with the big bearded "old timers" who do a lot of standing, and prostrating, and still believe in proper preparation to approach the Chalice, and not with the antiquarianist/abstract theories of academics that one will both see and acquire for one's self "theosis".

Regarding Augustine, I often hear negative things about him (many times in the form of straw men), and admittedly have even read some of his stuff that seemed to me to be unorthodox. But then I read men like Georges Florovsky, who seemed to like Augustine, and so I have to believe there there's something to him.

Rarely do I see in St.Augustine's writings that which others find so horrifying ; at worst, he relies on legal categories more than most Orthodox in our day would be comfortable with. However, it should be kept in mind that part of this is an unfortunate exageration, but part of it is also simply a difference of approach; and much to the shagrin of many "neo-patristic types", they are qualities not simply found in St.Augustine, but to a lesser extent in other great "western Fathers", and more significantly, in Eastern Fathers (and great teachers up to the present day.)

For example, while I understand why modern scholars like the term "ancestral sin" better (so as to avoid exagerations and distortions common to those creeds which use the term "original sin"), they should keep in mind that many great Orthodox teachers used the term "original sin" and probably had a view of this that the academics would be very uncomfortable with. However, this is more a matter of emphasis than anything else.

Seraphim

[尼古拉前执事]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

May I suggest The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church? I have heard that this allows for a look at Augustine

[Justin Kissel]

This post is going to be a bit controversial, but I'd like to mention another area that I think has been effected in the Church by an overall lack of asceticism. One of the fruits of asceticism is a realisation of our "place" in the universe (ie. we learn not to overestimate ourselves), while we usually grow prideful and defensive when we do not practice asceticism. Asceticism embraces the trials that lead to salvation, while not practicing asceticism leads people to having an attitude of 1. wanting at all costs to avoid trials, and 2. being defensive or having knee-jerk reactions when trials happen. I think this can be viewed in a number of areas, but the thing that seems to give rise to the most hostility revolves around God's judgment on us. Even in the middle of the last century we found things like this in the saints:

Thus, the catastrophe which has come upon Russia is the direct consequence of terrible sins, and the rebirth of Russia is possible only after cleansing from them. However, up to this time there has been no genuine repentance, the crimes that have been performed have clearly not been condemned, and many active participants in the Revolution continue even now to affirm that at that time it was not possible to act in any other way. - Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, The Meaning of the Russian Diaspora

I also remember reading recently a quote from an Orthodox Bishop (who Saint Justin Popovich called Equal to the Apostles) that essentially put the blame for the two great world wars squarely on the shoulders of humanistic European society. This, of course, is nothing new. There were lots of biblical stories that follow this pattern (e.g., 1. a people sin, 2. consequences follow and many die, 3. the need for repentance is proclaimed). Today (in America anyway) things are much different. Not only is it unacceptable today to say that bad things happened because of sin, but to even suggest that it is a possibility automatically brings ridicule and mocking from all areas of society (including Orthodox Christians). I remember once in college (admittedly, a Wesleyan college), the head of the Bible Studies Department expressed his utter disdain for anyone who would dare think that "a loving God" would use or even allow death and destruction as a "lesson". He sounded almost like a crypto-Marcionite. ("The God of the NT would never do something like that!") This seems to have permeated our whole culture though, and unfortunately, although the Church is suppose to be above the culture, it seems to have effected us as well. I sometimes wonder whether people truly pray (or do we only repeat with no sincerity?) some of our Orthodox prayers, when they so clearly imply that God does allow bad things to happen to us as a way of bringing us to the truth, or changing our practices/thoughts. One of my favorite prayers is the Scriptural Prayer that usually gets cut out:

Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner. For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief; for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses. And now I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. I earnestly implore you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me! Do not destroy me with my transgressions! Do not be angry with me forever or store up evil for me; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth. For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent, and in me you will manifest your goodness; for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy, and I will praise you continually all the days of my life. For all the host of heaven sings your praise, and yours is the glory forever. Amen. - Prayer of Mannaseh, 8-15

An ascetical man can say these things, he can truly make this prayer his own and say these things truly and whole-heartedly to God, but can most people today? I don't know that I can either, I'm just asking questions. If we find the idea that, for instance, 9/11 was some kind of wake-up call (and I'm not saying that it was, I don't know either way), to be offensive, then what does that say about our mindset? Should we not at least keep the possibility open? Should we not be repenting, whether it was from God or not, for the 35,000,000 babies that have been "legally murdered" in the U.S. in the last 30 years? To say that Israel (when taken into captivity) "got what it had coming to it, it was for its own good" and to say that "Sodom had what was coming to it, for it sinned greatly" and to say that "Egypt had what was coming to it" (during the Exodus), and then to turn around and pretend that America is some holy Christian nation whom God loves and would never harm -- this does not seem to me to be realistic. I don't claim to be an ascetical man, so I can't say what he would think; yet if I would speculate, I wouldn't think that he'd side with the normal American sentiment. I suppose the answer to this problem--if it is in fact a problem--will be for each of us to better apply ourselves.

[尼古拉前执事]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Code: Select all

 That is one thing that I agreed with, when Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson (I forget which) said that we can't call ourselves a country of God when we don't pray, we don't live up to God' standards or even try, so how can we expect a veil of protection over America, for we surely are no longer a Christian country. I was saddened when other Christians attacked him and he later recanted, because of how controversial it was to say that we sinned and have lost the protection of God as a country. Punishment always came to the Jews in the Old Testament every time they allowed themselves to fall away from God and worry more about themselves. God Bless!