Thursday, May 31, 2012
St. Silouan The Athonite: He Who Has Come To Know GOD
There is a big difference between merely believing that GOD exists, seeing HIM in nature or in the Scriptures, and knowing the LORD by the HOLY SPIRIT.
The spirit of the man who has learned to know GOD by the HOLY SPIRIT burns day and night with love of GOD, and his soul can form no earthly attachment.
The soul that has not known the sweetness of the HOLY SPIRIT rejoices in worldly vanity and praise, or in riches or power; but the LORD is the only desire of the soul that has come to know the LORD through the HOLY SPIRIT, and with this soul, riches and worldly fame count for naught. The soul that has tasted of the HOLY SPIRIT recognizes the taste. "O taste and see that the LORD is good," sang the Psalmist. David's was the knowledge of experience, and to this day the LORD gives to HIS servants to know HIS goodness through experience, and will so teach HIS servants till the end of time.
The man who has come to know GOD by the HOLY SPIRIT has learned humility of HIM, and become like to his MASTER, CHRIST the SON of GOD, and is fashioned in HIS image. --St. Silouan the Athonite
The Shepherd of Hermas: Tenth Mandate
...Those who have never searched for the Truth nor inquired about the Deity, but have simply believed, and have been mixed up in business affairs and wealth and pagan friendships and many other concerns of this world--well, those who are absorbed in these things do not comprehend the parables of the Deity, because they are darkened by these matters and are ruined and become barren. Just as good vineyards are made barren by thorns and weeds of various kinds when they are neglected, so men who have believed and then fall into these many activities that have been mentioned above lose their understanding and do not comprehend anything at all. But those who fear GOD and search for the Deity and Truth and direct their heart to the LORD grasp more quickly and understand everything that is said to them, because they have the fear of the LORD in themselves, for where the LORD lives, there also is much understanding. So hold fast to the LORD and you will understand and grasp everything. ... (10:1)
+++
Then again, when an angry temper holds fast to a man over some matter and he becomes very embittered, again grief enters the heart of the angry-tempered man, and he is grieved by what he has done, and he repents because he has done evil. This grief, therefore, seems to bring salvation, because he repented after having done evil.
So both actions grieve the SPIRIT: the double-mindedness, because it did not succeed in its attempt, and the angry temper grieves the SPIRIT, because it did what was evil. So both are a cause for grief for the HOLY SPIRIT, double-mindedness and an angry temper.
Rid yourself, therefore, of grief and do not oppress the work of the HOLY SPIRIT WHO lives in you, lest HE being GOD act against you and leave you. For the SPIRIT of GOD WHO was given to this flesh endures neither grief nor distress. ... (10:2)
+++
But the sorrowful man always does evil. Firstly, he does evil, because he grieves the HOLY SPIRIT, WHO was cheerful when given to man. Secondly, by grieving the HOLY SPIRIT, he acts lawlessly in that he neither prays nor confesses to GOD. For the intercession of a grieving man never has the power to ascend to the Altar of GOD. ...Because grief is entrenched in his heart. When the grief is mixed with the intercession, it does not permit the intercession to ascend in purity to the Altar. For just as vinegar mixed together with wine in the same bottle dos not have a pleasant taste, so also grief mixed with the HOLY SPIRIT does not have the same intercession. So cleanse yourself of this evil grief, and you will live to GOD: indeed, all will live to GOD who rid themselves of grief and clothe themselves with all cheerfulness. ... (10:3) --The Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 10 (mid second century AD)
Blessed Jerome: A Good Offering
"I assure you," HE said, "this poor widow has given more than all the rest of them. For they have given a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she has."
The poor widow only put two mites into the treasury. However, because she put in everything that she had, Scripture says her gifts to GOD were much more valuable than what the wealthy offered. For such gifts aren't evaluated by their weight, but by the willingness of the giver. ...Therefore, I wouldn't want you to offer to the LORD only what a thief can steal from you or an enemy can capture. Don't give HIM what a law could confiscate or what is liable to fluctuate in value. Don't offer what belongs to a long line of owners who follow each other as fast as wave follows wave in the sea. To sum this all up, don't offer what you must leave behind you when you die. Instead, offer to GOD that which no enemy can carry off and no tyrant can take from you. Give HIM that which will go down to the grave--rather, will go with you to the Kingdom of Heaven and the enchantments of Paradise. --Blessed Jerome.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Optina Hermitage - Psalm VI (Slavonic)
+++
Psalm VI (Douay Rheims)
Domine, ne in furore. A prayer of a penitent sinner, under the scourge of God. The first penitential psalm.
Unto the end, in verses, a psalm for David, for the octave.
(For the octave: Blessed Augustine understands it mystically, of the last resurrection, and the world to come; which is, as it were, the octave, or eighth day, after the seven days of this mortal life: and for this octave, sinners must dispose themselves, like David, by bewailing their sins, whilst they are here upon earth.)
[1] O Lord, rebuke me not in thy indignation, nor chastise me in thy wrath. [2] Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak: heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled. [3] And my soul is troubled exceedingly: but thou, O Lord, how long? [4] Turn to me, O Lord, and deliver my soul: O save me for thy mercy's sake.
[5] For there is no one in death, that is mindful of thee: and who shall confess to thee in hell? [6] I have laboured in my groanings, every night I will wash my bed: I will water my couch with my tears. [7] My eye is troubled through indignation: I have grown old amongst all my enemies. [8] Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity: for the Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. [9] The Lord hath heard my supplication: the Lord hath received my prayer.
[10] Let all my enemies be ashamed, and be very much troubled: let them be turned back, and be ashamed very speedily.
A Letter From Holy Elder Ambrose of Optina: Bear CHRIST's Yoke in Meekness, Being Humble of Heart
...You describe the continuation of what you consider to be an unsuitable situation. The fault here lies in the improper disposition of soul. No matter where we live or under what circumstances, salvation requires that we fulfill God’s commandments and submit to His will. Only in this way shall we attain peace of soul, as the Psalmist wrote: “Great peace have they that love Thy law and nothing shall offend them” (Ps. 118:165). But you persist in seeking inner peace and spiritual comfort through external circumstances. You keep thinking that you are not living in the right place, that you are living with the wrong people, that you have not managed things well, and that others have not acted as they should have. In the Holy Scripture it is written: “In every place is His dominion…”
From all your judgments and deliberations it is obvious that you want to see your salvation clearly laid out before you like the palm of your hand. This can only bring a person either to fall into pride or to become lazy; and we are not given what is not profitable for our souls. The same is true of what is untimely, as for example a premature foreknowledge of our own death. St. Peter Damascene writes that man’s salvation is found between fear and hope in order that he neither fall into despair nor be overly self-assured. If the holy Prophet David enjoins even the righteous: “Fear the Lord, all ye His saints,” how much more needful and beneficial is it for sinners to have the fear of God, fearing to transgress God’s commandments. This applies especially to judging which can easily cause a Christian to fall into hypocrisy. In the Gospel it is written: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam from thine own eye” (Matt. 7:5). Although it seems to us that we act out of zeal, this zeal is called “zeal not according to knowledge,” unbridled zeal. It is not without reason that the Apostle writes: “Who are thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth…for God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4)…
Furthermore, we must always remember that we are living in a monastery for our own amendment and not so as to correct others. The second condition, therefore, is that we must endeavor to awaken in ourselves humble and sincere repentance – not superficial, as we were wont to do in the world out of false shame and self-love. We have a sharp eye with regard to the sins and weaknesses of our neighbor, but we see our own faults as through a clouded pane of glass. In order to acquire humble and sincere repentance, one should attentively read (besides other books) the works of St. Ephraim the Syrian. Therein we see that we must first of all abandon all zeal not according to knowledge, which St. Isaac the Syrian calls unbridled zeal and which, under pretense of righteousness, can bring great harm to one’s spiritual life. ... --Holy Elder Ambrose of Optina
St. Didymus the Blind: Adam, Where Art Thou? (A Meditation)
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
O Only Begotten Son (Slavonic - Znamenny)
+++
Chant is performed by Men's Chorus of the Patriarchate of Moscow, 1994.
+++
English
Only Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God, Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, Who without change didst become man and wast crucified, O Christ our God, Trampling down death by death, Who art one of the Holy Trinity, Glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.
Fr. John Meyendorff: Creation
Creator and Creatures
For Athanasius,2 creation is an act of the will of God, and a will is ontologically distinct from nature. By nature, the Father generates the Son — and this generation is indeed beyond time — but creation occurs through the will of God, which means that God remains absolutely free to create or not to create and transcendent to the world after creating it. The absence of a distinction between the nature of God and the will of God was common to Origen and to Arius. To establish this distinction constitutes the main argument of Athanasius.
It is totally impossible to consider the Father without the Son because "the Son is not a creature, which comes into being by an act of will; by nature, He is the proper Son of the essence [of the Father]."3 The Son therefore is God by nature while "the nature of creatures, which come into being from nothing, is fluid, impotent, mortal, and composite."4 Refuting the Arian’s idea that the Logos is created in view of the world, Athanasius affirms that "it is not He who was created for us, but we were created for Him."5 In God, the order of nature precedes the order of volitive action6 and is both superior to and independent of it. Because God is what He is, He is not determined or in any way limited in what He does, not even by His own essence and being.
Divine "nature" and created "nature" are therefore separate and totally dissimilar modes of existence. The first is totally free from the second. Yet creatures depend upon God; they exist "by His grace, His will, and His word..., so that they can even cease to exist if the Creator so wishes."7 In Athanasius, therefore, we have advanced quite far from Origen’s cosmos, which was considered a necessary expression of God’s goodness identified with divine nature itself. At this point one discovers that the notion of creation, as expressed by Athanasius, leads to a distinction in God between His transcendent essence and His properties, such as "power" or "goodness," which express His existence and action ad extra, not His essence.
The difference in nature between God and His creatures, as well as the distinction between the "natural" generation of the Son by the Father, and creation "by act of will," is emphasized by both Cyril of Alexandria8 and John of Damascus.9 The difference also represents the ontological raison d’etre of the Chalcedonian definition on the "two natures" of Christ. The two natures can be understood as being in "communion" with each other, as "hypostatically" united, but they can never be "confused" — i.e., considered as "one nature."
Athanasius’ insistence on the transitory character of creation should not mislead us. What he wants to show is a contrast between the absolute, self-sufficient nature of God and the dependence upon Him of all created nature. He certainly does not want to reduce created existence to a mere "phenomenon." God’s creative act produced a new "created" order, another "essence" distinct from His own, an "essence" worthy of God deserving of His love and concern and fundamentally "very good." God does not create, as in Origen, simply a collection of equal intellects, which find a meaning of existence only in contemplating the essence of God and which are diversified only as a consequence of their Fall. Because creation is an essence and not simply a phantom or a mirage, there is a sense in which its meaning is found in itself, for even God "loves" the world, i.e., considers it as a reality vis-a-vis Himself. Even when it is assumed by the Logos in a hypostatic union, the created nature, according to the Chalcedonian definition, "preserves its properties." The implication of this created autonomy was developed in particular by Maximus the Confessor and by the Orthodox theologians of the iconoclastic period. Let us only emphasize here that the very ideas of providence, love, and communion, which reflect the creator’s action toward the world, presuppose difference and distinction between Him and His creation.
The Divine Plan.
Creation in time — i.e., the possibility of a true beginning of created existence — presents the major cleavage between Greek thought and Biblical Revelation. But the idea of an eternal plan which God put into effect when He created the world in time is not inconsistent with the concepts found in the Jewish "wisdom" literature, even more concretely in the Johannine theology of the Logos, and responds to at least some preoccupations of Greek philosophical thought.
Throughout its history, Byzantine theology, both "Greek" and Biblical as it was, struggled with the possibility of integrating into a consistent Christian view of creation, a theory of divine "ideas" about the world. The Platonic kosmos noẽtos had to be rejected inasmuch as it represented an eternal reality outside of God, both impersonal and "substantial," which would have limited the absolute freedom of the creative act, exclude creation ex nihilo, and tend to diminish the substantial reality of visible creation by considering it only as a shadow of eternal realities. This rejection was accomplished implicitly by the condemnation of Origen in 553 and explicitly in the Synodal decisions against John Italos in 1081. Meanwhile, patristic and Byzantine thought developed in reaction to Origenism. Gregory of Nazianzus, for example, speaks of "images of the world" as thoughts of God.10 These "thoughts" do not limit the freedom of a personal God, since they remain distinct from His nature. Only when He creates in time, they become "reality."11 The thoughts are the expressions also of divine will,12 not of divine nature; they are "perfect, eternal thoughts of an eternal God."13 Since there cannot be anything created "in God," the thoughts, or ideas about the world, are uncreated expressions of divine life, which represent the unlimited potentiality of divine freedom. God creates the world not "out of them" but out of nothing. The beginning of the world is the beginning of a totally new reality put forward by the act of creation, which comes from God and conforms to His eternal plan.
The existence in God of eternal, uncreated "potentiality," which is not God’s essence, either the world’s nor an essence in itself, but which implies a certain contingency toward creation, presupposes an antinomical concept of God, which finds different forms of expression in Byzantine theology. To describe it, Georges Florovsky writes that "we have to distinguish as it are two modes of eternity: the essential eternity in which only the Trinity lives and the contingent eternity of the free acts of Divine grace." 14 Actually on this point, Byzantine theology reached a direct sense of the difference between the impersonal philosophical notion of God as an absolute and the Biblical understanding of a God: personal transcendent and free.
To express the relationship between creator and creatures, the great Maximus the Confessor uses the old theology of the Logos as centre and living unity of the logos of creation. The terminology already existed in Philo and Origen. But whereas for Origen, the logoi as logoi exist only in an essential unity with the one Logos, for Maximus — their real and "logical" existence is also expressed in their diversity. The great difference between Origen and Maximus is that Maximus rejects Origen’s view of visible creation as diversified only through the Fall. The "goodness" of creation, according to Maximus, resides in creation itself, and not only in its unity with divine essence. But creation cannot be truly "good" unless its differentiated logoi, which pre-existed as "thoughts" and "wills" of God, are fixed in Him and preserve communion with the one "super-essential" divine Logos.15 Creatures therefore do not exist only "as logoi" or only by the fact that God eternally "knows them;" they exist "by themselves" from the very moment when God put His foreknowledge into action. In His thought, eternally, creatures exist only potentially while their actual existence occurs in time. This temporal, actual existence of created beings is not autonomous but centred in the one Logos and in communion with Him. There is a sense, therefore, in which "the one Logos is many logoi, and the many are one;" "the One is many according to creative and unifying procession of the One into the many, but the many are One according to the providence, which leads the many to turn up toward the One as their all-powerful principle."16 Paradoxically, therefore, the creatures are one in the one Logos, who however is "super-essential" and above participation.17 "Thus, the logoi are, to Maximus, not identical either with the essence of God or with the existence of the things in the created world. In fact, an apophatic tendency is combined, in Maximus, with an anti-pantheistic tendency... This is affected, above all, thanks to the understanding of the logoi as decisions of God’s will."18
By remaining faithful to the Athanasian distinction between nature and will, Maximus succeeds in building an authentically Christian ontology of creation, which remains throughout the history of Byzantine thought, a standard and virtually unchallenged authority.19 This ontology presupposes a distinction in God between "nature" (or "essence") and "energy," a distinction, which would later be called "Palamism." It presumes a personal and dynamic understanding of God as well as a dynamic, or "energetic," conception of created nature.
The Dynamism of Creation.
For Origen, the original, intellectual creation is static. It finds its true logical existence in the contemplation of God’s essence, and its first movement is a form of rebellion against God. Change and diversity in creation are consequences of the Fall and therefore fundamentally evil. For Maximus and the entire Byzantine theological tradition, the movement (kynesis) of creatures is the necessary and natural consequence of their creation by God.20 God therefore in creating the world placed outside of Himself a system of dynamic beings, which were different from Him in that they changed and moved toward Him.21 The logos of every creature consists, therefore, in being essentially active;22 there is no "nature" without "energy" or movement.
This dynamic conception of created nature constitutes Maximus’ main argument against the "Monoenergists" of the seventh century whose Christology consideres Christ’s humanity as having lost its genuinely human "energy" or will because of its union with divinity. But for Maximus, created nature would lose its very existence if it is deprived of its proper energy, its proper purpose, and its proper dynamic identity. This proper movement of nature however can be fully itself only if it follows its proper goal (skopos), which consists in striving for God, entering into communion with Him, and thus fulfilling the logos, or divine purpose, though which and for which it is created. The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible) but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world. We shall discuss later the anthropological and Christological dimensions of this concept of creation. But it also has obvious cosmological implications.
In general, the Byzantines accepted cosmological concepts inherited from the Bible or from antiquity. So hesitant were to push scientific knowledge further that it had even been written that "the meager accomplishment of the Byzantines in the natural sciences remains one of the mysteries of the Greek Middle Ages."23 In any case, it does not seem that Byzantine theology is to blame for that failure, for theology affirmes the dynamism of nature and therefore containes the fundamental incentive for studying and eventually controlling its development.
During the entire Byzantine Middle Ages, Basil’s homilies On the Hexaemeron were the standard and most authoritative text on the origin, structure, and development of the world. Supporting Athanasius’ opposition to the Hellenic and Origenistic concept of creation as an eternal cyclical repetition of worlds and affirming creation in time, Basil maintains the reality of a created movement and dynamism in creatures. The creatures do not simply receive their form and diversity from God; they possess energy, certainly also God-given, but authentically their own. "Let the earth bring forth" (Gn 1:24): "this short commandment," says Basil, "immediately became a great reality and a creative logos, putting forth, in a way, which transcended our understanding, the innumerable varieties of plants... Thus, the order of nature, having received its beginning from the first commandment, enters the period of following time until it achieves the overall formation of the universe."24 Using scientific knowledge as it existed in his time as well as the Stoic terminology of the "seminal reasons," Basil remains theologically independent from his non-Biblical sources. For example, he rejects the Stoic idea that the logoi of creatures are the true eternal essences of beings, a concept which could lead to the eternal return "of worlds after their destruction."25 Like Athanasius and Maximus, Basil remains faithful to the Biblical concept of absolute divine transcendence and freedom in the act of creation; divine providence, which gives being to the world through the logoi, also maintains it in existence but not at the expense of the world’s own created dynamism, which is part of the creative plan itself.
The existence of the world as dynamic "nature" (i.e., as a reality "outside of" God — for whom it is an object of love and providence), following its own order of evolutive growth and development, implies the possibility of purely objective scientific investigation of creatures by the human mind. This does not mean however that created nature is ontologically "autonomous." It has been created in order to "participate" in God, who is not only the prime mover and the goal of creation but also the ultimate meaning (logos) of its permanence. "God is the principle, the centre and the end," writes Maximus, "insofar as He acts without being passive... He is the principle as creator, He is the centre as providence, and He is the end as conclusion, for all things come from him, by him, and toward him [Rm ll:36]."26 A scientific knowledge, which would ignore this ultimate meaning of creation, would therefore be dangerously one-sided.
Sanctification of Nature.
In its present, defective state, created nature fulfils its destiny quite inadequately. The Biblical, anthropocentric concept of the world is preserved in Greek patristic literature: nature suffers from the Fall of man, the "microcosm," to whom God has granted the control of nature and who, instead, prefers to be controlled by it. As a result instead of revealing through its internal meaning (logos) and purpose (skopos), the divine plan for creation and through this — God Himself, nature became the domain and instrument of Satan: throughout creation, the "natural energy," which conforms to the original divine plan, is in struggle with the destructive forces of death. The dramatic character of the present existence of creation is generally taken for granted by Byzantine theologians, but it is most explicitly formulated in liturgy and spirituality.
The Byzantine rite of Baptism has inherited from Christian antiquity the strong initial emphasis on exorcism. The deliberate renunciation of Satan, the sacramental expulsion of the forces of evil from the soul of the candidate for baptism, implies a passage from slavery under the "prince of this world" to freedom in Christ. Liturgical exorcisms however are concerned not only with the demonic forces controlling the human soul. The "Great Blessing of Water" on the Feast of the Epiphany exorcises the cosmos whose basic element, water, is seen as a refuge of "nestling dragons." The frequent mention of the demonic forces of the universe in liturgical and patristic texts should be understood in a theological context, for they cannot be reduced to Biblical or Medieval mythologies alone even if they often reflect mythological beliefs. The "demonic" in nature comes from the fact that creation has fallen out of its original meaning and direction. God had entrusted control over the world to man — His own "image and likeness." But man chose to be controlled by the world and thereby lost his freedom. He then became subject to cosmic determinism to which his "passions" attach him and in which ultimate power belongs to death. This is the interpretation which Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus apply to the passage of Genesis 3:21 about the "garments of skin" given to Adam and Eve after the Fall. Rejecting Origen’s identification of the "garments" with material bodies — an interpretation based upon the Origenistic idea on the pre-existence of souls, Maximus describes the change in man’s situation only in terms of a new dependence upon the animal side of the world’s existence. Instead of using the potentialities of his nature to raise himself and the whole of creation to God, man submitted himself to the desires of his material senses.27 As a result, the world which was originally created by God, as "very good" became for man a prison and a constant temptation, through which the "prince of this world" establishes his reign of death.
By sanctifying water, food, and plants as well as the results of man’s own creativity such as works of art or technology (the Byzantine liturgy is very rich in sacramental actions of sanctification, or blessing), the Church replaces them all in their original and true relation, not only to God but also to man, who is God’s "image," to proclaim God’s control over the universe as the Blessing of Epiphany does, and amounts, in fact, to affirming that man is no longer a slave to cosmic forces:
The immaterial powers tremble before Thee; the sun praises Thee; and the moon worships Thee; the stars are Thy servants; and light bows to Thy will; the tempests tremble and the springs adore Thee. Thou didst spread out the heavens like a tent; Thou didst set the land upon the waters... [Therefore,] heeding the depth of Thy compassion, Ο Master, Thou couldst not bear to see humanity defeated by the devil, and so Thou didst come and didst save us. ... Thou didst free the children of our nature...
Thus, sanctification of nature implies its demystification. For a Christian, the forces of nature cannot be divine; neither can they be subject to any form of natural determinism: the resurrection of Christ by breaking the laws of nature has liberated man from slavery to nature, and he is called to realize his destiny as lord of nature in God’s name.
Byzantine liturgy, when it proclaims the sanctification of the cosmos, frequently mentions, not only the demonic powers, which have usurped authority over the world but also the "bodiless powers of heaven," cooperates with God and man in the restoration of the original and "natural" order in the world. Yet Byzantium has never had a universally accepted system or description of the angelic world with the exception of the Celestial Hierarchy of pseudo-Dionysius in which each of the nine orders of angels is considered as an intermediary between the highest power above it and the form of existence below. The goal of Dionysius is to preserve inside an outwardly Christian system of thought a hierarchical concept of the universe adopted from Neo-Platonism.
In spite of its very widespread but rather peripheral influence, the Dionysian concept of the angelic world never succeeded in eliminating the more ancient and more Biblical ideas about the angels. Particularly, striking is the opposition between the very minor role ascribed by Dionysius to the "archangels" (second rank from the bottom of the angelic hierarchy) and the concept found in Jewish apocalyptic writings including Daniel, Jude, and Revelation where the archangels Michael and Gabriel rank is the "chief captains" of God’s celestial armies. This idea has been preserved in the liturgy, which should be considered as the main and most reliable source of Byzantine "angelology."
Involved in the struggle against the demonic powers of the cosmos, the angels represent, in a way, the ideal side of creation. According to Byzantine theologians, they were created before the visible world,28 and their essential function is to serve God and His image, man. The scriptural idea that the angels perpetually praise God (Is 6:3; Lk 2:13) is a frequent theme of the Byzantine liturgy, especially of the Eucharistic canons, which call the faithful to join the choir of angels — i.e., to recover their original fellowship with God. This reunion of heaven and earth, anticipated in the Eucharist, is the eschatological goal of the whole of creation. The angels contribute to its preparation by participating invisibly in the life of the cosmos.
(Fr. John Meyendorff: Byzantine Theology-Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, "Creation")
Notes
1. Origen, De principiis, I, 2, 10; cd. Koctschau, pp. 41-42; trans. Butterworth, p. 23.
2. Sec G. Florovsky, "The Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius," Studia Patrisiica VI, part IV, TU 81 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962), 36-37.
3. Athanasius, Contra Arianos, III, 60; PG 26:448-449.
4. Contra Gentes, 41; PG 25:81CD.
5. Contra Arianos. II, 31; PG 26:212B.
6. Ibid., II, 2; PG26:149c.
7. Ibid., I, 20; PG 26:55A.
8. See, for example, Thesaurus, 15; PG 75:276B; ibid., 18; PG 75:313C.
9. De fide orth., I, 8; PG 94:812-813.
10. See especially Gregory of Nazianzus, Cartn. theol IV de mundo, V, 67-68; PG 37:421.
11. John of Damascus, De fide orth., II, 2; PG 94:865.
12. Ibid., I, 9; PG 94:837.
13. Maximus the Confessor, Schol.; PG 4:317.
14. Georges Florovsky, "The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy," EChurchQ 8 (1949), 67.
15. See Lars Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator, pp. 76-84.
16. Maximus the Confessor, Amb. 7; PG 91:1081c.
17. lbid.; PG 91:1081B.
18. Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator, p. 81.
19. See S. L. Epifanovich, Prepodobnyi Matksim lspovednik i Vizantiiskoe bogoslovie (Kiev, 1915), pp. 136-137.
20. See J. Meyendorfr, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Washington: Corpus, 1969), pp. 100-102.
21. See Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thai., 60; PG 90:621A.
22. Maximus the Confessor, Amb.; PG 91:1057B.
23. Milton V. Anastos, "The History of Byzantine Science: Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1961," Dumbarton Oakjs Papers 16 (1962), 411.
24. Basil of Caesarea, In Hex., horn. 5; PG 29:1160D.
25. Ibid., 3; PG 29:73C.
26. Maximus the Confessor, Cap. gnostica, I, 10; PG 91:1085D-1088A.
27. See, in particular, Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thai. 61; PG 90:628AB.
28. Gregory Nazianzus, Or. 38, 9; PG 36:320C; John of Damascus, De fide orth.; II, 3; PG 94:873.
It is totally impossible to consider the Father without the Son because "the Son is not a creature, which comes into being by an act of will; by nature, He is the proper Son of the essence [of the Father]."3 The Son therefore is God by nature while "the nature of creatures, which come into being from nothing, is fluid, impotent, mortal, and composite."4 Refuting the Arian’s idea that the Logos is created in view of the world, Athanasius affirms that "it is not He who was created for us, but we were created for Him."5 In God, the order of nature precedes the order of volitive action6 and is both superior to and independent of it. Because God is what He is, He is not determined or in any way limited in what He does, not even by His own essence and being.
Divine "nature" and created "nature" are therefore separate and totally dissimilar modes of existence. The first is totally free from the second. Yet creatures depend upon God; they exist "by His grace, His will, and His word..., so that they can even cease to exist if the Creator so wishes."7 In Athanasius, therefore, we have advanced quite far from Origen’s cosmos, which was considered a necessary expression of God’s goodness identified with divine nature itself. At this point one discovers that the notion of creation, as expressed by Athanasius, leads to a distinction in God between His transcendent essence and His properties, such as "power" or "goodness," which express His existence and action ad extra, not His essence.
The difference in nature between God and His creatures, as well as the distinction between the "natural" generation of the Son by the Father, and creation "by act of will," is emphasized by both Cyril of Alexandria8 and John of Damascus.9 The difference also represents the ontological raison d’etre of the Chalcedonian definition on the "two natures" of Christ. The two natures can be understood as being in "communion" with each other, as "hypostatically" united, but they can never be "confused" — i.e., considered as "one nature."
Athanasius’ insistence on the transitory character of creation should not mislead us. What he wants to show is a contrast between the absolute, self-sufficient nature of God and the dependence upon Him of all created nature. He certainly does not want to reduce created existence to a mere "phenomenon." God’s creative act produced a new "created" order, another "essence" distinct from His own, an "essence" worthy of God deserving of His love and concern and fundamentally "very good." God does not create, as in Origen, simply a collection of equal intellects, which find a meaning of existence only in contemplating the essence of God and which are diversified only as a consequence of their Fall. Because creation is an essence and not simply a phantom or a mirage, there is a sense in which its meaning is found in itself, for even God "loves" the world, i.e., considers it as a reality vis-a-vis Himself. Even when it is assumed by the Logos in a hypostatic union, the created nature, according to the Chalcedonian definition, "preserves its properties." The implication of this created autonomy was developed in particular by Maximus the Confessor and by the Orthodox theologians of the iconoclastic period. Let us only emphasize here that the very ideas of providence, love, and communion, which reflect the creator’s action toward the world, presuppose difference and distinction between Him and His creation.
The Divine Plan.
Throughout its history, Byzantine theology, both "Greek" and Biblical as it was, struggled with the possibility of integrating into a consistent Christian view of creation, a theory of divine "ideas" about the world. The Platonic kosmos noẽtos had to be rejected inasmuch as it represented an eternal reality outside of God, both impersonal and "substantial," which would have limited the absolute freedom of the creative act, exclude creation ex nihilo, and tend to diminish the substantial reality of visible creation by considering it only as a shadow of eternal realities. This rejection was accomplished implicitly by the condemnation of Origen in 553 and explicitly in the Synodal decisions against John Italos in 1081. Meanwhile, patristic and Byzantine thought developed in reaction to Origenism. Gregory of Nazianzus, for example, speaks of "images of the world" as thoughts of God.10 These "thoughts" do not limit the freedom of a personal God, since they remain distinct from His nature. Only when He creates in time, they become "reality."11 The thoughts are the expressions also of divine will,12 not of divine nature; they are "perfect, eternal thoughts of an eternal God."13 Since there cannot be anything created "in God," the thoughts, or ideas about the world, are uncreated expressions of divine life, which represent the unlimited potentiality of divine freedom. God creates the world not "out of them" but out of nothing. The beginning of the world is the beginning of a totally new reality put forward by the act of creation, which comes from God and conforms to His eternal plan.
The existence in God of eternal, uncreated "potentiality," which is not God’s essence, either the world’s nor an essence in itself, but which implies a certain contingency toward creation, presupposes an antinomical concept of God, which finds different forms of expression in Byzantine theology. To describe it, Georges Florovsky writes that "we have to distinguish as it are two modes of eternity: the essential eternity in which only the Trinity lives and the contingent eternity of the free acts of Divine grace." 14 Actually on this point, Byzantine theology reached a direct sense of the difference between the impersonal philosophical notion of God as an absolute and the Biblical understanding of a God: personal transcendent and free.
By remaining faithful to the Athanasian distinction between nature and will, Maximus succeeds in building an authentically Christian ontology of creation, which remains throughout the history of Byzantine thought, a standard and virtually unchallenged authority.19 This ontology presupposes a distinction in God between "nature" (or "essence") and "energy," a distinction, which would later be called "Palamism." It presumes a personal and dynamic understanding of God as well as a dynamic, or "energetic," conception of created nature.
The Dynamism of Creation.
This dynamic conception of created nature constitutes Maximus’ main argument against the "Monoenergists" of the seventh century whose Christology consideres Christ’s humanity as having lost its genuinely human "energy" or will because of its union with divinity. But for Maximus, created nature would lose its very existence if it is deprived of its proper energy, its proper purpose, and its proper dynamic identity. This proper movement of nature however can be fully itself only if it follows its proper goal (skopos), which consists in striving for God, entering into communion with Him, and thus fulfilling the logos, or divine purpose, though which and for which it is created. The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible) but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world. We shall discuss later the anthropological and Christological dimensions of this concept of creation. But it also has obvious cosmological implications.
In general, the Byzantines accepted cosmological concepts inherited from the Bible or from antiquity. So hesitant were to push scientific knowledge further that it had even been written that "the meager accomplishment of the Byzantines in the natural sciences remains one of the mysteries of the Greek Middle Ages."23 In any case, it does not seem that Byzantine theology is to blame for that failure, for theology affirmes the dynamism of nature and therefore containes the fundamental incentive for studying and eventually controlling its development.
The existence of the world as dynamic "nature" (i.e., as a reality "outside of" God — for whom it is an object of love and providence), following its own order of evolutive growth and development, implies the possibility of purely objective scientific investigation of creatures by the human mind. This does not mean however that created nature is ontologically "autonomous." It has been created in order to "participate" in God, who is not only the prime mover and the goal of creation but also the ultimate meaning (logos) of its permanence. "God is the principle, the centre and the end," writes Maximus, "insofar as He acts without being passive... He is the principle as creator, He is the centre as providence, and He is the end as conclusion, for all things come from him, by him, and toward him [Rm ll:36]."26 A scientific knowledge, which would ignore this ultimate meaning of creation, would therefore be dangerously one-sided.
Sanctification of Nature.
The Byzantine rite of Baptism has inherited from Christian antiquity the strong initial emphasis on exorcism. The deliberate renunciation of Satan, the sacramental expulsion of the forces of evil from the soul of the candidate for baptism, implies a passage from slavery under the "prince of this world" to freedom in Christ. Liturgical exorcisms however are concerned not only with the demonic forces controlling the human soul. The "Great Blessing of Water" on the Feast of the Epiphany exorcises the cosmos whose basic element, water, is seen as a refuge of "nestling dragons." The frequent mention of the demonic forces of the universe in liturgical and patristic texts should be understood in a theological context, for they cannot be reduced to Biblical or Medieval mythologies alone even if they often reflect mythological beliefs. The "demonic" in nature comes from the fact that creation has fallen out of its original meaning and direction. God had entrusted control over the world to man — His own "image and likeness." But man chose to be controlled by the world and thereby lost his freedom. He then became subject to cosmic determinism to which his "passions" attach him and in which ultimate power belongs to death. This is the interpretation which Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus apply to the passage of Genesis 3:21 about the "garments of skin" given to Adam and Eve after the Fall. Rejecting Origen’s identification of the "garments" with material bodies — an interpretation based upon the Origenistic idea on the pre-existence of souls, Maximus describes the change in man’s situation only in terms of a new dependence upon the animal side of the world’s existence. Instead of using the potentialities of his nature to raise himself and the whole of creation to God, man submitted himself to the desires of his material senses.27 As a result, the world which was originally created by God, as "very good" became for man a prison and a constant temptation, through which the "prince of this world" establishes his reign of death.
By sanctifying water, food, and plants as well as the results of man’s own creativity such as works of art or technology (the Byzantine liturgy is very rich in sacramental actions of sanctification, or blessing), the Church replaces them all in their original and true relation, not only to God but also to man, who is God’s "image," to proclaim God’s control over the universe as the Blessing of Epiphany does, and amounts, in fact, to affirming that man is no longer a slave to cosmic forces:
The immaterial powers tremble before Thee; the sun praises Thee; and the moon worships Thee; the stars are Thy servants; and light bows to Thy will; the tempests tremble and the springs adore Thee. Thou didst spread out the heavens like a tent; Thou didst set the land upon the waters... [Therefore,] heeding the depth of Thy compassion, Ο Master, Thou couldst not bear to see humanity defeated by the devil, and so Thou didst come and didst save us. ... Thou didst free the children of our nature...
Thus, sanctification of nature implies its demystification. For a Christian, the forces of nature cannot be divine; neither can they be subject to any form of natural determinism: the resurrection of Christ by breaking the laws of nature has liberated man from slavery to nature, and he is called to realize his destiny as lord of nature in God’s name.
Byzantine liturgy, when it proclaims the sanctification of the cosmos, frequently mentions, not only the demonic powers, which have usurped authority over the world but also the "bodiless powers of heaven," cooperates with God and man in the restoration of the original and "natural" order in the world. Yet Byzantium has never had a universally accepted system or description of the angelic world with the exception of the Celestial Hierarchy of pseudo-Dionysius in which each of the nine orders of angels is considered as an intermediary between the highest power above it and the form of existence below. The goal of Dionysius is to preserve inside an outwardly Christian system of thought a hierarchical concept of the universe adopted from Neo-Platonism.
In spite of its very widespread but rather peripheral influence, the Dionysian concept of the angelic world never succeeded in eliminating the more ancient and more Biblical ideas about the angels. Particularly, striking is the opposition between the very minor role ascribed by Dionysius to the "archangels" (second rank from the bottom of the angelic hierarchy) and the concept found in Jewish apocalyptic writings including Daniel, Jude, and Revelation where the archangels Michael and Gabriel rank is the "chief captains" of God’s celestial armies. This idea has been preserved in the liturgy, which should be considered as the main and most reliable source of Byzantine "angelology."
Involved in the struggle against the demonic powers of the cosmos, the angels represent, in a way, the ideal side of creation. According to Byzantine theologians, they were created before the visible world,28 and their essential function is to serve God and His image, man. The scriptural idea that the angels perpetually praise God (Is 6:3; Lk 2:13) is a frequent theme of the Byzantine liturgy, especially of the Eucharistic canons, which call the faithful to join the choir of angels — i.e., to recover their original fellowship with God. This reunion of heaven and earth, anticipated in the Eucharist, is the eschatological goal of the whole of creation. The angels contribute to its preparation by participating invisibly in the life of the cosmos.
(Fr. John Meyendorff: Byzantine Theology-Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, "Creation")
Notes
1. Origen, De principiis, I, 2, 10; cd. Koctschau, pp. 41-42; trans. Butterworth, p. 23.
2. Sec G. Florovsky, "The Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius," Studia Patrisiica VI, part IV, TU 81 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962), 36-37.
3. Athanasius, Contra Arianos, III, 60; PG 26:448-449.
4. Contra Gentes, 41; PG 25:81CD.
5. Contra Arianos. II, 31; PG 26:212B.
6. Ibid., II, 2; PG26:149c.
7. Ibid., I, 20; PG 26:55A.
8. See, for example, Thesaurus, 15; PG 75:276B; ibid., 18; PG 75:313C.
9. De fide orth., I, 8; PG 94:812-813.
10. See especially Gregory of Nazianzus, Cartn. theol IV de mundo, V, 67-68; PG 37:421.
11. John of Damascus, De fide orth., II, 2; PG 94:865.
12. Ibid., I, 9; PG 94:837.
13. Maximus the Confessor, Schol.; PG 4:317.
14. Georges Florovsky, "The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy," EChurchQ 8 (1949), 67.
15. See Lars Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator, pp. 76-84.
16. Maximus the Confessor, Amb. 7; PG 91:1081c.
17. lbid.; PG 91:1081B.
18. Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator, p. 81.
19. See S. L. Epifanovich, Prepodobnyi Matksim lspovednik i Vizantiiskoe bogoslovie (Kiev, 1915), pp. 136-137.
20. See J. Meyendorfr, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Washington: Corpus, 1969), pp. 100-102.
21. See Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thai., 60; PG 90:621A.
22. Maximus the Confessor, Amb.; PG 91:1057B.
23. Milton V. Anastos, "The History of Byzantine Science: Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1961," Dumbarton Oakjs Papers 16 (1962), 411.
24. Basil of Caesarea, In Hex., horn. 5; PG 29:1160D.
25. Ibid., 3; PG 29:73C.
26. Maximus the Confessor, Cap. gnostica, I, 10; PG 91:1085D-1088A.
27. See, in particular, Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thai. 61; PG 90:628AB.
28. Gregory Nazianzus, Or. 38, 9; PG 36:320C; John of Damascus, De fide orth.; II, 3; PG 94:873.
The Shepherd of Hermas: The Ninth Mandate
Do, therefore, cleanse your heart of all the vanities of this life, and of all the things mentioned to you...and ask of the LORD, and you will receive everything, and will not fail to receive all of your requests, if you ask unhesitatingly. But if you hesitate in your heart, you will certainly not receive any of your requests. For those who hesitate in their relation to GOD are the double-minded, and they never obtain any of their requests. But those who are perfect in faith make all their requests trusting in the LORD, and they receive them, because they ask unhesitatingly, without any double-mindedness.
For every double-minded man, unless he repents, will scarcely be saved. So cleanse your heart of double-mindedness and put on faith, because it is strong, and trust GOD that you will receive all the requests you make.
And whenever you ask for something from the LORD and you receive your request rather slowly, do not become double-minded just because you did not receive your soul's request quickly, for assuredly it is because of some temptation or some transgression, of which you are ignorant, that you are receiving your request rather slowly. Do not, therefore, stop making your soul's request, and you will receive it. But if you become weary and double-minded as you ask, blame yourself and not the ONE WHO gives to you.
For faith promises all things, perfects all things, but double-mindedness, not having any confidence in itself, fails in all the works it tries to do.
So you see...that faith is from above, from the LORD, and has great power, but double-mindedness is an earthly spirit from the devil that has no power. So serve faith, which has power, and have nothing to do with double-mindedness, which has no power, and you will live to GOD, indeed, all who are so minded will live to GOD. ...--The Shepherd of Hermas: Mandate 9 (mid second century AD)
St. Gregory the Theologian: On Good Will
Friday, May 25, 2012
The Six Psalms - Шестопсалмие (3, 37, 62, 87, 102, 142): Valaam
+++
Регент Валаамского монастыря иеродиакон Герман (Рябцев) - The choirmaster of Valaam monastery Hierodeacon German (Ryabtsev)
+++
English:
THE SIX PSALMS
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men. (Thrice).
O Lord, open Thou my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Thy praise. (Twice).
From Easter until Ascension, we also read:
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life (Thrice).
+
Psalm III
Lord, how are they increased that trouble me? Many are they that rise up against me.
Many there be which say to my soul, There is no salvation for him in his God.
But thou, O Lord, art my helper; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.
I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy mountain.
I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord will help me.
I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, that have set themselves against me round about.
Arise, O Lord, save me, O my God, for thou hast smitten all them that are mine enemies without a cause; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly.
Salvation belongeth unto the Lord, and thy blessing is upon thy people.
I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord will help me.
+
Psalm XXXVII
O Lord, rebuke me not in Thy wrath, neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure.
For Thine arrows are stuck fast in me, and Thou hast pressed Thine hand heavily upon me.
There is no soundness in my flesh because of Thine anger, neither is there any peace in my bones because of my sins.
For mine iniquities are gone over my head; as a heavy burden have they pressed sore upon me.
My wounds stink and are corrupt, because of my foolishness.
I am troubled and bowed down greatly; I went with mourning countenance all the day long.
For my loins are filled with mockings, and there is no healing in my flesh.
I am troubled and brought down greatly; I have roared by reason of the groaning of my heart.
Lord, all my desire is before Thee, and my groaning is not hid from Thee.
My heart is troubled, my strength hath failed me; as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me.
My friends and my neighbours drew near and stood over against me, and my kinsmen stood afar off.
They also that sought after my life used violence, and they that sought my hurt spake vanities, and imagined deceits all the day long.
But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth.
And I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs.
For in Thee, O Lord, have I hoped; Thou wilt hear me, O Lord my God.
For I said, Let never mine enemies rejoice over me; for when my feet slipped, they made boast against me.
For I am ready for scourges, and my sorrow is continually before me.
For I will declare mine iniquity, and be sorry for my sin.
But mine enemies live, and are stronger than I, and they that hated me wrongfully are multiplied.
They that render me evils for good have slandered me, because I followed the thing that good is.
Forsake me not, O Lord my God; depart not from me. Make haste to help me, O Lord of my salvation.
Forsake me not, O Lord my God; depart not from me. Make haste to help me, O Lord of my salvation.
+
Psalm LXII
O God my God, early do I seek Thee. My soul hath thirsted for Thee, how many ways my flesh hath longed for Thee, in a barren and untrodden land, where no water is.
So have I appeared before Thee in the sanctuary, to see Thy power and glory.
Because Thy mercy is better than lives; my lips shall praise Thee.
So will I bless Thee while I live, and I will lift up my hands in Thy name.
Let my soul be satisfied as with marrow and fatness, and my mouth shall praise Thee with joyful lips.
If I have remembered Thee upon my bed, I meditated on Thee in the morning watches.
Because Thou hast been my help; in the shelter of Thy wings will I rejoice.
My soul hath cleaved to Thee, Thy right hand hath upholden me.
But they have sought my soul in vain; they shall go into the lower parts of the earth, they shall be given over to the power of the sword, they shall be portions for foxes.
But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by Him shall be praised, for the mouth of them that speak unjustly hath been stopped.
If I have remembered Thee upon my bed, I meditated on Thee in the morning watches.
Because Thou hast been my help; in the shelter of Thy wings will I rejoice.
My soul hath cleaved to Thee, Thy right hand hath upholden me.
+++
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God. (Thrice, without reverences)
Lord, have mercy. (Thrice)
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
+++
Psalm LXXXVII
O Lord God of my salvation, I have cried day and night before Thee.
Let my prayer come before Thee; incline Thine ear unto my supplication.
For my soul is full of evils, and my life hath drawn nigh unto hell.
I am counted with them that go down into the pit; I am become as a man without help, free among the dead.
Like the bodies of the slain that sleep in the grave, whom Thou rememberest no more: and they are cut off from Thy hand.
They have laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, and in the shadow of death.
Thy wrath is made strong over me, and Thou hast brought all Thy waves upon me.
Thou hast put away mine acquaintance far from me; they have made me an abomination unto them.
I am delivered up, and I cannot come forth; mine eyes are grown weak by reason of poverty.
Lord, I have called daily upon Thee, I have stretched out my hands unto Thee.
Wilt Thou work wonders for the dead? Or shall physicians raise them up to praise Thee?
Shall any in the grave tell of Thy mercy, and of Thy truth in that destruction?
Shall Thy wonders be known in that dark, and Thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?
But unto Thee have I cried, O Lord, and in the morning shall my prayer prevent Thee.
Lord, why castest Thou off my soul, and turnest Thou away Thy face from me?
I am poor and in troubles from my youth up; yea, having been exalted, I was bowed down, and brought low unto distress.
Thy fierce wrath hath gone over me, and Thy terrors have troubled me.
They came round about me like water; all the day long they compassed me about together.
Friend and neighbour hast Thou put far from me, and mine acquaintance, because of misery.
O Lord God of my salvation, I have cried day and night before Thee.
Let my prayer come before Thee; incline Thine ear unto my supplication.
+
Psalm CII
Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me bless His holy name.
Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits.
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, who healeth all thine infirmities.
Who redeemeth thy life from corruption, who crowneth thee with mercy and loving kindness.
Who satisfieth thy desire with good things; thy youth shall be renewed like the eagle's.
The Lord executeth mercy and judgment for all that are wronged.
He made known His ways unto Moses, His will unto the children of Israel.
The Lord is compassionate and merciful, long-suffering and plenteous in mercy. He will not always be angry, neither will He be wrathful for ever.
He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
For as the heaven is high above the earth, the Lord hath made His mercy to prevail over them that fear Him.
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our iniquities from us.
Like as a father hath compassion upon his children, so hath the Lord compassion on them that fear Him; for He knoweth whereof we are made, He remembereth that we are dust.
As for man, his days are as the grass; as a flower of the field, so shall he flourish.
For when the wind hath passed over it, it shall be gone, and it will know the place thereof no more.
But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him.
And His righteousness upon children's children, upon such as keep His testament, and remember His commandments to do them.
The Lord hath prepared His throne in heaven, and His kingdom ruleth over all.
Bless the Lord, all ye His angels, mighty in strength, that perform His word, to hearken unto the voice of His words.
Bless ye the Lord, all ye His hosts, ye ministers of His that do His pleasure.
Bless the Lord, all ye works of His, in all places of His dominion. Bless the Lord, O my soul.
In all places of His dominion. Bless the Lord, O my soul.
In all places of His dominion. Bless the Lord, O my soul.
+
Psalm CXLII
Hear my prayer, O Lord; give ear unto my supplication in Thy truth; hear me in Thy righteousness.
And enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.
For the enemy hath persecuted my soul; he hath humbled my life to the ground.
He hath sat me in darkness, as those that have been long dead; and my spirit hath fainted within me, my heart within me is troubled.
I remembered the days of old, I meditated on all Thy works, I considered the works of Thy hands.
I stretched forth my hands unto Thee; my soul thirsteth after Thee as a thirsty land.
Hear me speedily, O Lord; my spirit hath fainted away.
Turn not Thy face from me, lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit.
Cause me to hear Thy mercy in the morning, for in Thee have I put my trust.
Cause me to know, O Lord, the way wherein I should walk, for I have lifted up my soul unto Thee.
Deliver me, O Lord, from mine enemies; I have fled unto Thee for refuge. Teach me to do Thy will, for Thou art my God.
Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the land of uprightness; Thou shalt quicken me, O Lord, for Thy name’s sake.
In Thy righteousness shalt Thou bring my soul out of trouble, and of Thy mercy shalt Thou cut off mine enemies.
And Thou shalt destroy all them that afflict my soul, for I am Thy servant.
Hearken unto me in Thy righteousness, O Lord, and enter not into judgment with thy servant.
Hearken unto me in Thy righteousness, O Lord, and enter not into judgment with thy servant.
Thy gracious spirit shall direct my paths upon earth.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, Glory to thee, O Lord. (Thrice)
Holy Hieromartyr Germogen, Patriarch of Moscow and All the Russias
The Holy Hieromartyr Germogen, Patriarch of Moscow and All the Russias, was glorified into the rank of the saints on 12 May 1913.
During the course of three centuries from generation to generation the memory of Patriarch Germogen as a sainted bishop-martyr was passed on, and popular faith in him grew as an intercessor and supplicant for the Russian land before the Throne of the Almighty. During terrible years of national hardship, the supplicative thought of the nation turned itself to the memory of the heroic Patriarch. The Russian people came to his tomb with their personal tribulations, sickness and infirmity, reverently asking help of sainted Germogen, believing him a fervent suppliant and intercessor before the Lord. And the All‑Merciful Lord rewarded their belief...
Towards the day of his solemn glorification – 300 years from the time of death of the Hieromartyr Germogen, – believers from all ends of Russia began to flock to Moscow. Pilgrims hastened to venerate the relics of the holy Patriarch, located in the Uspensky Sobor (Dormition Cathedral) of the Kremlin, where panikhidas were done almost without interruption. On the eve of the glorification a procession was made, at the head of which they carried an icon of Saint Germogen, and after it a grave-cover, on which the saint was depicted full-length in mantle and with staff. Alongside the icon of the Patriarch they carried an icon of the Monk Dionisy of Radonezh – his fellow-striver in the spiritual and the patriotic deeds in the liberation of the Russian land from Polish-Lithuanian usurpers. At the bell-tower of Ivan the Great was emblazened a tremendous banner: "Rejoice, Hieomartyr Germogen, Great Intercessor of the Russian land". An hundred thousand candles blazed in the hands of believers proclaiming the Saint of God. At the conclusion of the procession, ‑‑ at the shrine with the relics of the Patriarch, they began readings of the Paschal Canon together with an appended Canon to Sainted Germogen.
The all-night vigil was done under the open skies on all the Kremlin squares. On this night there occurred a number of healings through the graced prayers of Holy Germogen. Thus, for example, a certain sick person came to the Uspensky Sobor on crutches, but became aware of healing as he approached the shrine bearing the relics of the Saint. Another sick person was healed, having suffered from terrible crippling. They brought him on a stretcher to the reliquary of the Hieromartyr Germogen, where he received full healing. These and other similar healings, eye-witnessed by a multitude of the faithful, became remarkable proofs of the saintliness of the new Russian wonderworker.
The Holy Synod of the Russian Church established as days of celebration to the Hieromartyr Germogen, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus': 17 February – his repose (the account about his life and works are located under this day), and 12 May – his glorification into the ranks of holy hierarchs. He is also commemorated with the Synaxis of the Holy Hierarchs of Moscow on October 5.
Great is the national significance of Saint Germogen, a tireless struggler for the purity of Orthodoxy and the unity of the Russian land. His ecclesial and civil-patriotic activity during the course of several centuries serves as an outstanding example of his ardent faith and love for the Russian people. The ecclesial activity of the Archpastor is characterised by an attentive and strict regard for Divine-services. Under him were published: a Gospel, a Monthly Menaion for September (1607), October (1609), November (1610), and the first twelve days of December, and also there was printed the "Great Primary Ustav / Rule" in 1610. In this Saint Germogen did not limit himself to providing a blessing of the edition, but carefully oversaw the accuracy of the text. With the blessing of Holy Germogen also was translated from Greek into the Russian language the Service to the holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called (Comm. 30 November) and the celebration of memory was initiated in the Uspensky Sobor. Under the supervision of the Archpastor, there were made new presses for the printing of Divine-service books and a new building for printing was built, – which however was damaged during the time of the 1611 conflagration, when Moscow was burnt by the Poles. Concerned about the order of Divine-services, Saint Germogen compiled a "Missive directed , Saint Germogen compiled a "Missive directed to all the people, especially priests and deacons, about the improvement of Church singing". The "Missive" chastises clergy-servers in the non-ustav doing of Church services – for much-talking, and laypeople for irreverent attitudes towards Divine-services.
The remarks of his contemporaries speak of Patriarch Germogen as a man of outstanding mind and erudition: "a Master of great reason and thought and of sharp mind", "very remarkable and of much deliberation", "very accomplished of wisdom and refined in book learning", "ever concerning himself about Divine literature and all the books about the Old Law and the New Grace, and chasing down to the end various Church ustavs and law principles". Saint Germogen busied himself much in the monastic libraries, foremost of which, – in the very rich library of the Moscow Chudov monastery, where he copied out from ancient manuscripts very precious historical accounts, located in the their original in the chronicle manuscripts. In the XVII Century they called the Chronicle by His Holiness Patriarch Germogen the "Voskresensk Chronicle". In the collected works of the Archpastor of the Russian Church and his arch-pastoral documents there are constantly encountered references to Holy Scripture, and examples taken from history, that testify to his profound knowledge of the Word of God and his erudition in the Church literature of his time.
Patriarch Germogen brought together and displayed aspects from this erudition in his preaching and teaching. The remarks of his contemporaries characterise the moral figure of the Archpastor as "a man of reverence", "of known purity of life", "a true pastor of the flock of Christ", "a sincere upholder of the Christian faith".
+++
Life
Soon after, he became a monk and from 1582 was made archimandrite of the Savior-Transfiguration Monastery at Kazan.
Metropolitan of Kazan
On May 13, 1589, he was consecrated bishop and became the first Metropolitan of Kazan. In 1591 the saint gathered newly baptized Tatars into the cathedral church, and for several days he instructed them in the Faith.
St Germogen displayed passion in the observance of Church traditions, and he devoted himself to enlightening the Kazan Tatars with the faith of Christ.
Patriarch
The new first hierarch devoted all his powers to the service of the Church and the nation. But this was a time of troubles for the Russian state with the appearance of the false Demetrius (or Dmitri, an impostor claiming to be the son of Ivan the Terrible) and the Polish king Sigismund III. The patriarch stood up against the traitors and enemies of the nation, who wanted to spread Uniatism and Western Catholicism throughout the Russias and to wipe out Orthodoxy while enslaving the Russian peoples.
When the impostor arrived at Moscow and settled himself at Tushino, Patriarch Germogen sent two letters to the Russian traitors reminding them of their Faith and their country. False Dmitri was killed by his own close associates on December 11, 1610. But Moscow continued to remain in peril, since the Poles and traitors, loyal to Sigismund III, remained in the city.
While still in prison, the Hieromartyr Germogen sent a final epistle to the Russian nation, blessing the liberating army to fight the invaders. He suffered for more than nine months in confinement, and on February 17, 1612, he died a martyr's death from starvation and maltreatment at the hands of the Poles and their traitorous confederates. The body of the hieromartyr was buried in the Chudov Monastery and in 1654 before being transferred to the Moscow Dormition Cathedral. The glorification of Patriarch Germogen occurred on May 12, 1913.
+Holy Father Germogen of Moscow, pray to GOD for us!
The Shepherd of Hermas: The Eighth Mandate
...Be self-controlled regarding evil, and do not do it, but do not be self-controlled regarding good, but do it. For if you exercise self-control regarding what is good, with the result that you not do it, you commit a major sin. But if you exercise self-control regarding evil, so as not to do it, you achieve great righteousness. Exercise self-control, therefore, over all evil and that which is good. ...
...Adultery and fornication, lawless drunkeness, wicked luxury, many kinds of food and extravagance of wealth and boasting and snobbery and arrogance, and lying and slander and hypocrisy, malice and all blasphemy. These actions are the most wicked of all in the life of men. So, the servant of GOD must exercise self-control over these works, for the one who does not exercise self-control over these is not able to live to GOD. Listen also, therefore, to the things that follow them. ...theft, lying, robbery, perjury, greed, lust, deceit, vanity, pretentiousness, and whatever else is like these. Don't you think that these things are evil? Indeed to the servants of GOD, they are very evil. ...In all these things the one who serves GOD must exercise self-control. Exercise self-control, therefore, over all these things, that you may live to GOD and be enrolled with those who do exercise self-control over them. ...
So keep this commandment; if you do good and do not exercise self-control in this respect, you will live to GOD; indeed, all who do so will live to GOD. And again, if you do not do evil and do exercise self-control over it, you will live to GOD, indeed, all who keep these commandments and walk in them will live to GOD. ... --The Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 8 (mid second century AD)
St. Hesychius the Priest: Four Types of Watchfulness
Thursday, May 24, 2012
St. Barsanuphius of Gaza: Blessing of the Great Elder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)