LF an orthodox view on Padre Pio
R.V. Gronoff
I've been googling around to try and find anything about the case of
Padre Pio from an orthodox point of view, but unsuccessfully.
I find stigmatas and high bodily temperature (over 48°C!) highly
suspicious, but I'd like something more detailed about these phenomena
that are unknown of both the Orthodox Rome of the 1st millennium and the
Orthodox Church until today.
Thanks,
Vassili
jmd
as I already said on the matter of "stigmata", this is an erroneous view, my dear friend
Saint Paul in the NT, the oldest Latin Life of saint Patrick, the oldest Coptic Life of
saint Macarius the Great, show them too with stigmatas
today, from psychological research, we do know for sure that one can suffer bodily pains
due to mental conditions. A woman who has been beaten by her father when young, when
encountering a man looking to her father, can develop visible marks on her body, by the
terror in her memory. This has already been seen by medics of scientific police, it was a
case we had to study when I was in psy' dept' for police school.
The identification of saint Paul, saint Patrick or saint Macarius with Christ has maybe,
at some point, been too far - but out of love
what happens in secular world - pio & the like - is also simply psychological, for what
the stigmatas concerns
for bodily temp, I don't know and honnestly... we have enough interesting thing inside
the Church :-)
jm
Dan
It is also suspicious that no sooner had Francis of Assisi been widely-
reported has having developed stigmata, there was a sudden outburst of
"copy-cat cases". Hence the possibility that stygmata represent some
form of psychopathology.
veritas
"Dan" <gero...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1178986107.2...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I saw a television documentary once where it showed an Argentinean woman
who could make her palms bleed ( stigmata ) through though alone.
It is a case of mind over body . She was controlling her blood pressure too
.
You called it psycho-pathology which is correct . But some cases ( maybe 1
in every 100,000 ) may be
"miraculous" so we have to keep an open mind . Otherwise don't believe in
miracles and try to explain
every single thing through objective science.
OrthoNews1
"R.V. Gronoff" <regis....@ahmadinejadifrance.com> wrote in message
news:4645355b$0$18517$426a...@news.free.fr...
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=206&SID=3
QUESTION:
What is the OCA's view of stigmata or other modern manifestations of Jesus
or Mary? I would appreciate both a theological answer, and official Church
position, if there is one.
ANSWER:
Stigmata, such as manifested in Padre Pio, are foreign to the Orthodox
experience and, as such, the Church has no official position in this regard.
There have been, however, such phenomena as weeping icons and the like
within the Orthodox world. In such cases an investigation is undertaken to
ascertain the legitimacy of such things, and the Church is generally
cautious in immediately proclaiming them to be miracles.
My personal opinion is that such things indeed may be signs from God, or
they could be deceptions or distractions from the devil, but that if one
remains focused on Christ one should not make too much of them. The real
miracle in such instances is found, not in the phenomena themselves, but,
rather, in the repentance and changed lives that they inspire. As St John of
Kronstadt says, "Lord, I am a miracle of Thy goodness and wisdom and love."
In other words, one should not allow such things to overshadow the attention
that is due God and God alone, nor to allow such things to become more
central to life than the Gospel.
R.V. Gronoff
Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for.
I was asking because my parents have a friend, a very kind woman who's a
retired ER nurse, who's been very helpful to them and is a fervent
catholic. She's offered my mother a picture of Padre Pio and explained
her the story of the stigmatas, and I wanted to give my parents an
Orthodox view on this man and the stigmatas in general.
Anyway, my mother told me this morning that everytime she prays, she
sees Elder Sophrony praying with her, so I'm confident she won't fall in
any trap, even unvoluntary set by good-hearted people such as her friend.
The joyful peace of Christ be with you!
Vassili
Dan
I agree. I must admit though, that I have a very negative feeling
about stigmata. I recently read the biography of Mother Angelica, the
Roman Catholic nun who founded EWTN. Among the pictures in the book is
one of a female "mystic" who inspired M.A. during her youth. She may
have been legitimate, but the picture of an extremely obese woman
exhibiting ugly wounds was just plain creepy. It "felt wrong".
Of course that may (at least in part) be a matter of taste - I have
never cared much for the (pre-modern) western obsession with blood and
gore.
OrthoNews2
***Just the same, I've seen photographs on the internet of Padre Pio's
hands, bandaged and unbandaged. He definately had "sores" on the palms of
his hands.
jmd
>
>
> You called it psycho-pathology which is correct . But some cases ( maybe 1
> in every 100,000 ) may be
>
> "miraculous" so we have to keep an open mind . Otherwise don't believe in
> miracles and try to explain
>
> every single thing through objective science.
sure, but why would our Lord act miracles that make a group stronger than His Church?
Franciscus of Assisi has openly worked against the Church - when he was in Egypt, he
could not avoid to get to know the Church, and despite this, he worked to promote the
vatican. Franciscans, in less than one generation after his death, took over the vatican,
and destroyed litteraly in 1256 all that was left as Orthodoxy in the equivalent of the
Breviary, the Office of the whole Church. If he was really inspired by God, then he would
have understood, when discovering in Middle East the existence of the Church, that he was
at the wrong place. And he wouldn't have struggled so much to reinforce the vatican group.
imho
jm
robb7thurston
jm
I agree with this totally. One sees in Franciscus of Assisi the sort
of radicalism often encountered in enthusasts, persons not too
zealously beholden to the disciplines of their Bishop and a little
impressed with the dictates of prelest. The history of the Western
church is a sad affair and I hesitate to kick it, but when it is
presented as exemplary, a little history will dispell such delusions.
One can easily compare Franciscus with a latter day enthusiast, George
Fox, who caused havoc in England. These persons always arise in time
of intense distress, and we must be kind to them and their contingent,
but it is unkind to exalt them, they need help.
Here is a nice book on the extremists of a radical party, the
Spiritual Franciscans:
The Spiritual Franciscans - Google Books Resultby David Saville Muzzey
- 1907 - 75 pages
At head of title: American historical association.
books.google.com/books?id=GxeLAr6gDNMC... - Note this
Indeed, where was Franciscus seen to assist the Orthodox Church?
In this sense he brought all the aggression that the Franks brought to
Constantinople and Syria. One hierarch of Orthodoxy called that:
opression and confusion. Let the buyer beware.
Robb
LiamToo
> Indeed, where was Franciscus seen to assist the Orthodox
> Church?
I wonder if you know that the Orthodox monks at New Skete came from
the religious order that was founded by Saint Francis of Asisi?
Dan
Are you being disingenuous? You have followed this newsgroup long
enough to realize that there is a lot of disagreement among us about
New Skete. It has its fervant defenders (especially in the OCA), but
it also has Orthodox critics, some of whom are very dubious about its
Orthodoxy. Perhaps someone who knows New Skete better than I do, could
enlighten us regarding their view of Francis of Assisi (whom we
Orthodox do not regard as a saint).
If the critics of New Skete are right, it just confirms that even we
Orthodox have not entirely escaped the effects of the liberalism/
modernism that have so damaged your church and society at large. It
would also point to the need for greater care about how catechumens
are brought into the Church.
It is important to note, however, that we have not experienced the
kind of disastrous collapse that occurred in the Roman Catholic church
after Vatican II, with open and radical apostacy, and monastics
espousing everything from armed revolution to pagan mother-goddess
worship. We have no Nicaraguan rebels or Pagan Lesbian nuns among our
faithful.
LiamToo
> Are you being disingenuous?
Nope. I asked a very sincere question to a poster who seems to be
attacking St. Francis of Asisi. Have you read his post?
Dan this is a public newsgroup. I'm sure that you've participated in
other newsgoups before including the Catholic groups?
Please be informed that we, Catholics do not attack other groups like
the beloved Orthodox groups, unlike others.
Dan
> On May 14, 3:15 pm, Dan <geront...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Are you being disingenuous?
>
> Nope. I asked a very sincere question to a poster who seems to be
> attacking St. Francis of Asisi. Have you read his post?
I have. He posted his opinions here in an Orthodox newsgroup; he
didn't cross-post to the RC group. I'm afraid you've touched a nerve
with me, because I am sick and tired of people holding New Skete up as
representative of Orthodoxy. Whether or not they are fully Orthodox in
their faith and practice, they are in NO WAY representative of
Orthodox monasticism.
> Dan this is a public newsgroup. I'm sure that you've participated in
> other newsgoups before including the Catholic groups?
It is a public newsgroup, but newsgroups are grouped by topic, and
posters are asked to respect them by remaining on-topic. We see you
rushing in whenever someone in this Orthodox group says something
critical of your church and its teaching. How many of us lurk in
a.r.c.r-c for the sole purpose of jumping out and doing battle every
time that the Orthodox Church is mentioned?
> Please be informed that we, Catholics do not attack other groups like
> the beloved Orthodox groups, unlike others.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the beloved Orthodox groups". I can no
longer bring myself to look at alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
which often makes this newsgroup look like a Sunday school picnic.
Some of the would-be defenders of Roman Catholicism whose posts I have
read there have been every bit as arrogant as (and a heck of a lot
more ignorant than) anyone here.
LiamToo
> I have. He posted his opinions here in an Orthodox newsgroup;
> he didn't cross-post to the RC group. I'm afraid you've touched
> a nerve with me, because I am sick and tired of people holding
> New Skete up as representative of Orthodoxy. Whether or not
> they are fully Orthodox in their faith and practice, they are in NO
> WAY representative of Orthodox monasticism.
So why can't you say so in a Christianlike way? Why the attacks?
> > Dan this is a public newsgroup. I'm sure that you've participated in
> > other newsgoups before including the Catholic groups?
>
> It is a public newsgroup, but newsgroups are grouped by topic, and
> posters are asked to respect them by remaining on-topic. We see you
> rushing in whenever someone in this Orthodox group says something
> critical of your church and its teaching. How many of us lurk in
> a.r.c.r-c for the sole purpose of jumping out and doing battle every
> time that the Orthodox Church is mentioned?
Yes and my response is to the pertinent post.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the beloved Orthodox groups".
> I can no longer bring myself to look at
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> which often makes this newsgroup look like a Sunday school picnic.
> Some of the would-be defenders of Roman Catholicism whose
> posts I have read there have been every bit as arrogant as
> (and a heck of a lot more ignorant than) anyone here.
There you go again. I just cannot write what you write about the RCC
to the Orthodox Church.
jmd
they went from the dark to the Light, good
jmd
>
>
> There you go again. I just cannot write what you write about the RCC
> to the Orthodox Church.
of course, because RCC is simply a secular group, with some of its members bearing
religiouslike vestments and titles, not much more
it's secular, it's the world, it's not inside the Church, and never will be
it has destroyed the Church in the West, it has pushed to atheism billions of people
since one millenium, it has openly used armed forces of its own to agress and destroy
nations, to kill loads of people. That's just another secular state, like others. so of
course, you can't write any such thing against the Church of Christ
Kyrie eleison - may our Lord have mercy of those prefering the darknesses to His Light
"because they are afraid of being kicked out of the synagogue", aka the worldly RCC group
jm
Dan
> On May 14, 3:45 pm, Dan <geront...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > I have. He posted his opinions here in an Orthodox newsgroup;
> > he didn't cross-post to the RC group. I'm afraid you've touched
> > a nerve with me, because I am sick and tired of people holding
> > New Skete up as representative of Orthodoxy. Whether or not
> > they are fully Orthodox in their faith and practice, they are in NO
> > WAY representative of Orthodox monasticism.
>
> So why can't you say so in a Christianlike way? Why the attacks?
Is there such a thing as "a Christianlike way"? The way in which we
communicate varies with the circumstances. We can't always be lovey-
dovey. It would not be appropriate, for example, to respond the same
way to money lenders in the Temple as one would to guests in the House
of the Lord.
FWIW I didn't believe that I was attacking YOU; I was attempting to
take issue with your conduct here and with the content of a lot of
your posts.
Liam, what you see with me is what you get. I don't have much of a
talent for artifice.
As far as I'm concerned, an attack is an attack, even when it is
initiated and conducted in a smarmy and putatively-irenic fashion.
> > > Dan this is a public newsgroup. I'm sure that you've participated in
> > > other newsgoups before including the Catholic groups?
>
> > It is a public newsgroup, but newsgroups are grouped by topic, and
> > posters are asked to respect them by remaining on-topic. We see you
> > rushing in whenever someone in this Orthodox group says something
> > critical of your church and its teaching. How many of us lurk in
> > a.r.c.r-c for the sole purpose of jumping out and doing battle every
> > time that the Orthodox Church is mentioned?
>
> Yes and my response is to the pertinent post.
You avoided my question. Who is the "attacker", when we leave you to
say what you wish among yourselves, but you insist on lurking here for
the sole purpose of defending Roman Catholic positions in an Orthodox
newsgroup?
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "the beloved Orthodox groups".
> > I can no longer bring myself to look at
> > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> > which often makes this newsgroup look like a Sunday school picnic.
> > Some of the would-be defenders of Roman Catholicism whose
> > posts I have read there have been every bit as arrogant as
> > (and a heck of a lot more ignorant than) anyone here.
>
> There you go again. I just cannot write what you write about the RCC
> to the Orthodox Church.
Perhaps you cannot.
The Orthodox Church never invaded and sacked Rome. It never put one of
its bishops on the papal throne. It never resorted to deceit, forgery
and blackmail in order to restore "unity". It never hived off large
groups of your faithful and set them up as "counter-Churches" in
catholic nations. When Roman Catholics come to Orthodoxy, it is they
who do the coming; we don't try to entrap them.
Because of the history of relations between us, you may sometimes have
to show more patience with us than we do with you. Our suspicions run
deep and flair up easily.
leushino
Bravo, Dan. Very well said. It might interest you to know that I
essentially gave off communicating with Liam some time back due to the
very issues you've raised. I applaud your patience and your willingness
to stay the course as it were.
jmd
>
> On May 14, 4:53 pm, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 14, 3:45 pm, Dan <geront...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > I have. He posted his opinions here in an Orthodox newsgroup;
> > > he didn't cross-post to the RC group. I'm afraid you've touched
> > > a nerve with me, because I am sick and tired of people holding
> > > New Skete up as representative of Orthodoxy. Whether or not
> > > they are fully Orthodox in their faith and practice, they are in NO
> > > WAY representative of Orthodox monasticism.
> >
> > So why can't you say so in a Christianlike way? Why the attacks?
>
> Is there such a thing as "a Christianlike way"? The way in which we
> communicate varies with the circumstances. We can't always be lovey-
> dovey. It would not be appropriate, for example, to respond the same
> way to money lenders in the Temple as one would to guests in the House
> of the Lord.
I totally approve all you say here, Dan!
Jean-Michel
OrthoNews2
"LiamToo" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179171720.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
***Yes, and the thought that some Orthodox monks and nuns still call
themselves "Franciscan" is scandalous. But, that's the OCA for you.
OrthoNews2
> On May 14, 3:15 pm, Dan <geront...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Are you being disingenuous?
>
> Nope. I asked a very sincere question to a poster who seems to be
> attacking St. Francis of Asisi. Have you read his post?
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov
During my prayer two great lights appeared before me (deux grandes lumibres
m'ont ete montrees)-one in which I recognized the Creator, and another in
which I recognized myself.
-Francis' own words about his prayer
He (Fr Serge) thought about the fact that he was a burning lamp, and the
more he felt that, the more he felt a weakening, a quenching of the divine
light of truth burning within him.
-L.N. Tolstoy, "Father Serge."
The truly righteous always consider themselves unworthy of God.
-Dictum of St Isaac the Syrian
Studying the biographical data of Francis of Assisi, a fact of the utmost
interest concerning the mysticism of this Roman Catholic ascetic is the
appearance of stigmata on his person. Roman Catholics regard such a striking
manifestation as the seal of the Holy Spirit. In Francis' case, these
stigmata took on the form of the marks of Christ's passion on his body.
The stigmatisation of Francis is not an exceptional phenomenon among
ascetics of the Roman Catholic world. Stigmatisation appears to be
characteristic of Roman Catholic mysticism in general, both before it
happened to Francis, as well as after. Peter Damian, as an example, tells of
a monk who bore the representation of the Cross on his body. Caesar of
Geisterbach mentions a novice whose forehead bore the impress of a Cross.
[1] Also, a great deal of data exists, testifying to the fact that after
Francis' death a series of stigmatisations occurred which, subsequently,
have been thoroughly studied by various investigators, particularly in
recent times. These phenomena, as V. Guerier says, illuminate their primary
source. Many of them were subjected to careful observation and recorded in
detail, e.g.,, the case of Veronica Giuliani (1660-1727) who was under
doctor's observation; Luisa Lato (1850-1883) described by Dr Varleman, [2]
and Madelaine N. (1910) described by Janat. [3]
In Francis of Assisi's case, it should be noted that the Roman Catholic
Church reacted to his stigmatisation with the greatest reverence. It
accepted the phenomenon as a great miracle. Two years after his death, the
Pope canonized Francis as a saint. The chief motive for his canonization was
the fact of the miraculous stigmata on his person, which were accepted as
indications of sanctity. This fact is of singular interest to Orthodox
Christians, since nothing similar is encountered in the lives of the
Orthodox Church's Saints-an outstanding exponent of which is the Russian
Saint, Seraphim of Sarov.
It should be mentioned here, that the historical accounts of Francis'
stigmatisation do not now give rise to any doubts in the scholarly world. In
this regard, reference is made to Sabbatier who studied Francis' life, and
especially his stigmatisation, in detail. Sabbatier came to the conclusion
that the stigmata were definitely real. Sabbatier sought to find an
explanation of the stigmatisation in the unexplored area of mental
pathology, somewhere between psychology and physiology. [4]
Before proceeding with an explanation of Francis' stigmatisation from an
Orthodox mystical standpoint-the primary purpose of this paper-an
investigation of stigmata as physiological phenomena will be undertaken at
this point, since such an investigation will contribute valuable information
for a subsequent Orthodox evaluation of the "mysticism" of the Roman
Catholic saint.
Guerier includes in his work on Francis the scientific findings of G. Dumas
who analysed the process of stigmatisation from a psycho-somatic viewpoint.
[5] The following are the conclusions Dumas came to concerning stigmatics:
1. One must recognize the sincerity of stigmatics and that stigmata appear
spontaneously, i.e., they are not self-inflicted wounds, inflicted while the
person is in an unconscious state.
2. The wounds on stigmatics are regarded as phenomena relating to the
circulatory system (blood vessels) and are explained as effects of mental
suggestion which does affect digestion, circulation of blood, glandular
secretions. It can result in cutaneous injuries.
3. The wounds on stigmatics appear while they are in an ecstatic state
which results when one is absorbed in some sort of contemplated powerful
image, and surrenders control to that image.
4. The stigmata appear not only as a result of one's passive imaging of a
wound on the body, but, according to the testimony of stigmatics, when the
imaging is accompanied by the active action of the image itself-specifically
that of a fiery ray or lance, seen as proceeding from a contemplated wound,
which wounds the stigmatic's body. Often, this happens gradually, and not
with the first vision, until the degree eventually is reached where the
image contemplated during ecstasy finally gains control over the
contemplating subject.
Dumas established the following general criteria for stigmatisation: all
stigmatics experience unbearable pain in the affected parts of the body, no
matter what form the stigmata take-imprint of Cross on the shoulder; traces
of the thorns of a crown of thorns on the head; or, as with Francis of
Assisi, as wounds on the hands, feet and on the side. Together with the
pain, they experience great delight in the thought that they are worthy to
suffer with Jesus, to atone, as He did, for the sins of which they are
innocent. [6] (This, of course, is commensurate with the Roman Catholic
"satisfaction theory," which is unknown to the Orthodox Church.) [7]
Dumas' generalizations are extremely interesting since they imply that in
the process of stigmatisation, apart from the impassioned emotional state
(an emotional ecstasy of the heart) a great role is also played by: a) a
mental element; b) a mental imaging presenting acute suffering; c)
auto-suggestion, i.e., a series of mental and volitional impulses directed
toward translating the sufferings of the imagined image into; d) physical
feelings-pain; and, finally, e) the production on the self of marks (wounds)
of suffering-stigmata.
Dumas' observations recognize factors more than the emotional (which William
James considers the source of mysticism) [8] which play an equal, if not
greater role in the process of stigmatisation. These may be summarized as:
1. An intense labor of mental imagination,
2. Suggestion,
3. Sensual feelings, and,
4. Physiological manifestations.
The significance of these will be apparent later.
Following the brief scientific analysis concerning stigmaties in general,
specific data, regarding Francis' ecstasy and vision, as contained in the
work Fioretti, which will give the background leading to the vision, as well
as a description of the phenomenon.
The stigmatisation of Francis of Assisi, due to the results of his vision,
are ascribed to a singular prayer. The prayer is an intense pleading on his
part that he may experience the sufferings of Christ in his body and soul.
In the prayer, Francis desires Divine instigation of the experience and
thirsts to experience this not just with his soul, but with his body. Thus,
surrendering himself to ecstatic prayer, he did not renounce his body, but
was inviting earthly, or bodily sensations, i.e., physical suffering.
Francis' prayer was answered. The chronicle says that, "Francis felt himself
completely transformed into Christ." This transformation was not only in
spirit, but also in body, i.e., not only in spiritual and psychological
sensations, but also in physical ones. How did the vision actually occur?
First of all, quite unexpectedly for him, Francis saw something described as
miraculous: he saw a six-winged Seraph, similar to the one described by the
Prophet Isaiah, coming down from heaven to him. (First stage of vision).
Then, after the Seraph approached, Francis, thirsting for Jesus and feeling
himself "transformed into Christ," began to see Christ on the Seraph, nailed
to a cross. In the words of the chronicle, "And this Seraph came so close to
the saint that Francis could clearly and distinctly see on the Seraph the
image of the Crucified One." (Second state of vision). Francis recognized in
the image of the Seraph Christ Himself Who had come down to him. [9] He felt
Christ's suffering on his body, whereupon his desire to experience this
suffering was satisfied. (Third stage of vision). Then the stigmata began to
appear on his body. His striving and fervent praying appeared to be
answered. (Fourth stage of vision).
The amazing complexity of Francis' vision is startling. Over the initial
vision of the Seraph, who had, apparently, descended from heaven for
Francis, was superimposed another image-the one Francis thirsted to have
above all, that of the Crucified Christ. The developing process of these
visions leaves one with the impression that the first vision (that of the
Seraph), so unexpected and sudden, was outside the realm of Francis'
imagination, who longed to see the Crucified Christ, and to experience His
sufferings. In this manner, it can be explained how such a complex
conception, in which both visions, both images-that of the Seraph and of
Christ -found room in Francis' consciousness.
The experience of Francis of Assisi is remarkable and of singular interest
to Orthodox Christians, since as mentioned above, nothing similar is
encountered in the experience of the Orthodox Church with a long line of
ascetics, and equally long history of mystical experiences. As a matter of
fact, all of the things Francis experienced in the process of his
stigmatisation are the very beguilements the Church Fathers repeatedly
warned against!
Recalling how the ascetics of the Orthodox Church understand the highest
(spiritual) prayer as detailed in the Philokalia, it is to be emphasized
here that they regarded this prayer alongside their own personal strivings,
as a synergetic operation (man co-operating with God) to achieve detachment,
not only from everything physical or sensory, but also from rational
thought. That is, at best, a direct spiritual elevation of the person to
God, when the Lord God the Holy Spirit Himself intercedes for the supplicant
with "groanings which cannot be uttered." [10] As an example, St Isaac of
Syria in his Directions says, "A soul which loves God, in God, and in Him
alone finds peace. First release yourself from all your outward attachments,
then your heart will be able to unite with God; for union with God is
preceded by detachment from matter." [11] It is the plain speaking of St
Nilos of Sinai, however, that slashes through with distinct clarity to
present a serious juxtaposition to the alleged Divine visitation that
Francis experienced. In the Text on Prayer, he admonishes: "Never desire nor
seek any face or image during prayer. Do not wish for sensory vision or
angels, or powers, or Christ, lest you lose your mind by mistaking the wolf
for the shepherd and worship the enemies-the demons. The beginning of the
beguilement (plani) of the mind is vainglory, which moves the mind to try
and represent the Deity in some form or image. [12]
Francis' ecstatic prayer was answered, but in the light of both St Isaac's
and St Nilos' counsels, clearly not by Christ. The chronicle says that
"Francis felt himself completely transformed into Christ," transformed not
only in spirit, but also in body, i.e., not only in spiritual and
psychological sensations, but also in physical ones. While granting that
Francis was fully convinced that he had been spiritually taken up to the
Logos, the rise of special physical sensations cannot, according to St
Isaac, be ascribed to the action of a spiritually good power.
Francis' physical sensations can be explained as the work of his own mental
imagination moving parallel to his spiritual ecstasy. It is hard to say, in
this given instance, which was dominant in Francis' beguilement (plani): his
spiritual pride, or his mentalism (mental imaging); but, in any case, the
mentalism was rather strong. This is confirmed by the substantive
circumstances of the unusually complex vision which was presented to Francis
after he felt himself completely transformed into Jesus which is clearly a
very severe state of plani, having its roots, as St Nilos says, in
vainglory.
The exaggeratedness of Francis' exaltation, which was noted in the
description of his vision, is revealed very boldly when compared with the
majestic vision of Christ which St Seraphim of Sarov experienced while
serving as a deacon on Great Thursday of Passion Week. [13]
In contrast to Francis, St Seraphim did not seek to "feel himself
transformed into Jesus" through his prayers and labors. He prayed simply and
deeply, repenting of his sins. During the course of his prayer, and as a
result of his great ascetic acts, the mystical power of Grace grew in him
which he neither felt, nor realized. Standing before the throne (Holy Table)
with a burning heart, as in the words of Elias of Ekdik "...the soul, having
freed itself from everything external, is united with prayer, and that
prayer, like a sort of flame surrounding the soul as fire does iron, makes
it all fiery," [14] St Seraphim unexpectedly was stunned with the appearance
of the Mysterious Divine Power. St Seraphim neither imagined, nor dreamt,
nor expected such a vision. When it occurred, he was so stunned that it took
two hours for him to "come to his senses." Later, he himself described what
had happened. At first he was struck by an unusual light as if from the sun.
Then he saw the Son of Man in glory, shining brighter than the sun with an
ineffable light and surrounded "as by a swarm of bees" by the heavenly
powers. Coming out of the North Gate (of the sanctuary) Christ stopped
before the amvon and, lifting up His hands, blessed those who were serving
and those who were praying. The vision then vanished.
Several items in the account of St Seraphim's vision are of interest in this
study. Firstly, in direct contrast to prayer, St Seraphim's prayer is devoid
of any element that would remotely suggest that he desired any visible
(sensory) signs of the Divine Presence. Least of all, did he think in his
life that he was ever worthy of being "transformed into Jesus," as Francis
prayed. The key characteristic of the Saint's prayer is a profound humility,
evidenced by his articulated confession of sinfulness which prompted him
toward prayerful repentance. The significance of this, as the Church Fathers
repeatedly point out, is that true humility effectively prevents one from
falling into vainglory.
A second profound aspect of St Seraphim's prayer is the fact that no favor
of Divine Manifestation is asked of God. Neither, of course, as mentioned
previously, was anything extraneous to his repentance, thought or imaged
while he prayed. This, of course, would be commensurate with St Seraphim's
repentance, since his articulation of it indicates quite clearly that he
himself was never deceived to think that he had achieved a level of
worthiness where, in spite of his sins, he could boldly ask for Holy things.
If he had thought about himself in this manner, he would have easily slipped
into conceit. St Seraphim's prayer was intended for the exact opposite which
did indeed make him worthy of the Divine Vision. St Maximos the Confessor in
the First Century of Love expressed it thus, "He who has not yet attained to
knowledge of God inspired by love, thinks highly of what he does according
to God. But a man who has received it repeats in his heart the words of our
forefather Abraham, when God appeared to him, 'I am earth and ashes'
(Gn.18:27)."
Concerning St Seraphim's vision, it should be noted that the highest
spiritual state, attained through the way indicated by the ascetics in the
Philokalia, develops in a person's heart outside the mental and sensual
spheres, and, consequently, outside the sphere of mental imagination. Abba
Evagrios in his Texts on Active Life-To Anatolios, says:
The mind will not see the place of God in itself, unless it rises above
all thoughts of material and created things; and it cannot rise above them
unless it becomes free of the passions binding it to sensory objects and
inciting thoughts about them. It will free itself of passions by means of
virtues, and of simple thoughts by means of spiritual contemplation; but it
will discard even this when there appears to it that light which, during
prayer, marks the place of God. [16]
The experience of man's mystical union with God is, therefore, usually very
difficult to convey in human terms. It happens, however, that visions are
allowed people who have cultivated passionlessness in themselves, but in the
majority of these cases these visions are momentary, and they strike the
inner being of the person-they come as if from within. St Isaac the Syrian
elaborates: "If you are pure, then heaven is within you; and in yourself you
will see angels, and with them and in them, the Lord of Angels." [17] The
Fathers of the Orthodox Church teach that all these experiences are beyond
any expectation of the humble man, for the ascetic in his humility does not
feel himself worthy of this.
Recapitulating St Seraphim's experience, it can be seen that it bore the
following characteristics:
1. Simplicity;
2. Repentance;
3. Humility;
4. An unexpected vision beyond sensory and rational categories;
5. Spiritual ecstasy or ravishment.
Emphasizing the last item, St Isaac, quoted above, explains: "...the
contemplation of a hyper-conscious vision, granted by Divine Power, is
received by the soul-within itself immaterialy, suddenly and unexpectedly;
it is discovered and revealed from within, because, in Christ's words, 'the
kingdom of heaven is within you'-This contemplation inside the image,
imprinted in the hidden mind (the higher intellect) reveals itself without
any thought about it." [18]
From the above points taken from a comparison of the two visions and of what
Francis and St Seraphim experienced in these, there is a sharp difference in
the mysticism of the two. St Seraphim's mysticism appears as a purely
spiritual ecstasy, as something bestowed on the ascetic, as a gift of a
spiritual vision, as an enlightenment of his higher intellect, [19] while
Francis' spiritual experience is a mysticism induced by his will, and
obviously darkened by his own imagination and sensuality.
A further distinctive difference between the two is the different
relationship expressed by them toward Christ. In contrast to Saint Seraphim,
who experienced Christ's spiritual power in his heart and accepted Christ
within himself, Francis in his imaging, received his impression primarily
from Christ's earthly life. Francis was absorbed in Christ's external aspect
of suffering. This impression came upon him at Monte La Verna as if from
without.
Concomitant with his very strong desire to experience Christ's suffering,
was his compulsion to imitate other earthly aspects of Jesus' life. He not
only sent his own "Apostles" to various regions of the earth to preach,
giving them virtually the same instructions the Saviour gave to His
Apostles, [20] but he even produced before his disciples not long before his
death something similar to the great Mystical Supper itself. "He recalled,"
says his biographer, "that sanctified meal which the Lord celebrated with
His disciples for the last time." [21] This presumption cannot be excused on
the basis of his flamboyant life, regardless how severe his asceticism was
or how many virtuous things he did. It stands as a prime indication, from an
Orthodox point of view, of the severity of his fall into the condition of
spiritual beguilement.
Before proceeding it is imperative to outline briefly the condition called
plani. In general terms, according to Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky,
plani (prelest, in Russian) usually results when the devil deludes the
person by suggesting the thought that he has been granted visions (or other
gifts of Grace). Then the evil one constantly blinds his conscience,
convincing him of his apparent sanctity and promises him the power of
working wondrous acts. The evil one leads such an ascetic to the summit of a
mountain or the roof of a church, and shows him a fiery chariot, or some
other such wondrous thing, which will bear him to Heaven. The deluded one
then steps into it (that is, he accepts the delusion) and falls headlong
into the abyss, and is dashed to death without repentance. [22]
What is clear from such a brief analysis of plani is that the subject who
undergoes the experience usually has succumbed to some form of pride,
usually vainglory, hence the presumption that one has finally achieved a
state from whence he is deluded to think that he no longer must be watchful
concerning the possibility of a fall into sin, or even blasphemy against
God. It is, of course, the Luciferian sin, and by definition the most
difficult to contend with, hence, the importance and constant emphasis in
religious writing, concerning ascetic obedience and humility until the very
end of one's earthly life.
It has already been shown above that Francis' vision contains strong marks
of spiritual deception. What remains, therefore, is a characterization of
Francis' work and acts which will stand as the prime characterization of his
mysticism. Presenting a few incidents from Francis' life, and then,
contrasting these with incidents from the life of St Seraphim of Sarov, it
will be possible to draw a final conclusion regarding the mysticism of these
two ascetics. It should be stated here that the example incidents chosen are
generally characteristic of the subjects.
It is recorded in the Fioretti that Francis at one time failed to fulfil the
rules of a strict fast because of an illness. This oppressed the ascetic's
conscience to such a degree that he decided to repent and punish himself.
The chronicle states:
... he commanded that the people be gathered on the street in Assisi for a
sermon. When he had finished the sermon, he told the people that no one
should leave until he returned; he himself went into the cathedral with many
brethren and with Peter de Catani and told Peter to do what he would tell
him to do according to his vow of obedience and without objecting. The
latter answered that he could not and should not desire or do anything
against his [Francis'] will either to him or to himself. Then Francis took
off his outer robe and ordered Peter to put a rope around his neck and lead
him half-naked out to the people to the very place from which he had
preached. Francis commanded another brother to fill a cup with ashes and,
having climbed up onto the eminence from which he had preached, to pour
these ashes on his head. This one, however, did not obey him, since he was
so distressed by this order because of his compassion and devotion to
Francis. But Brother Peter took the rope in his hands and began dragging
Francis behind him as the latter had commanded. He himself cried bitterly
during this, and the other brothers were bathed in tears from pity and
grief. When Francis had thus been led half-naked before the people to the
place from which he had preached, he said, 'You and all who have left the
world after my example and follow the way of life of the brethren consider
me a holy man, but before the Lord and you I repent because during this
sickness of mine I ate meat and meat drippings'. [23]
Of course Francis' sin was not so great and hardly deserved the dramatic
form of penance in which Francis clothed his repentance, but such was a
general characteristic of Francis' piety. He strove to idealize everything
which an ascetic was obliged to do; he strove also to idealize the very
ascetic act of repentance.
Francis' idealization of Christian acts of asceticism can also be noted in
his relationship to the act of almsgiving. This can be seen in the way
Francis reacted to beggars. In Francis' eyes beggars were creatures of a
very high stature in comparison to other people. In the view of this Roman
Catholic mystic, a beggar was the bearer of a sacred mission, being an image
of the poor, wandering Christ. Therefore, in his instructions Francis
obliges his disciples to beg for alms. [24]
Finally, Francis' idealized enthusiasm was especially revealed in his
recollections of Christ's earthly suffering. In the biography of Francis it
says that, "being drunk with love and compassion for Christ, blessed Francis
once picked up a piece of wood off the ground and, taking it in his left
hand, he rubbed his right hand over it as if it were a bow over a violin,
while humming a French song about the Lord Jesus Christ. This singing ended
with tears of pity over Christ's suffering, and with earnest sighs, Francis,
falling into a trance, gazed at the sky...." [25]
There can be no doubt, as even Francis' biographers euphemistically attest,
that this important founder of the Franciscan Order was demonstrative in his
acts of repentance, revealing quite graphically the absence of a critical
degree of watchfulness necessary in the ascetic life for the acquisition of
true humility. As a matter of fact, whenever indications of Francis'
humility are expounded upon in the Fioretti they are never lacking in a
compromising presumptuousness whether God allegedly speaks to him, as an
example, through the mouth of Brother Leon, [26] or when he presumes that he
has been chosen by God "to see good and evil everywhere," when tested by
Brother Masseo for his humility. [27] It is true that Francis describes his
vileness and wretchedness, but there is lacking in all this any attendant
remorse, or contrition that would indicate that he considered himself
unworthy before God. Although he frequently spoke of the necessity of
humility, and gave the Franciscan brethren useful instruction in this
regard, he himself throughout his life experienced this only in isolated
fits, albeit very strong ones; it came in fits not entirely free, as
indicated above, from exaggeration and melodrama. Nothing can be so
revealing in this matter, however, as his own statements to the brethren. At
one time he was to say to his disciples, "I do not recognize any
transgression in myself for which I could not atone by confession and
penance. For the Lord in His mercy has bestowed on me the gift of learning
clearly in prayer in what I have pleased or displeased Him." [28] These
words, of course, are far from genuine humility. They suggest, rather, the
speech of that virtuous man who was satisfied with himself (the Pharisee)
who, in the parable, stood in the temple, while the Publican prostrated
himself in a corner, begging God in words of true humility: "God be merciful
to me a sinner."
When Francis' acts of "humility" are compared with St Seraphim's thousand
day struggle on the rock, a stark contrast results. There, while in battle
with his passions, [29] St Seraphim cried out the very words of the Publican
over and over again: "0 God be merciful to me a sinner." In this feat there
is neither exaltation, nor ostentatious display. Saint Seraphim is simply
having recourse to the only possible means open to him for forgiveness
after, a. recognition of his passions; b. a contrition welling forth from
his remorse over his spiritual condition; c. a need to overcome the
passions; d. his awareness of his inability and unworthiness to accomplish
this alone and; e. his long and arduous appeal to God for mercy.
Even during his last years, when Saint Seraphim experienced many perceptions
of extra-ordinary spiritual strength, as well as direct communion with God,
he never succumbed to self-satisfaction, or self-adulation. This is quite
apparent in his now famous conversation with N. Motovilov,[30] as well as
during his talk with the monk John when he manifested, through the Grace of
God, an unusual luminosity. Indeed, Saint Seraphim was unable to express the
state of the latter luminosity in his own words. Also, it is well known that
Saint Seraphim was the bearer of an extraordinary gift of clairvoyance as
well as of prophetic vision. The hearts of people who came to him were an
open book to him, yet not once does he compromise the extraordinary gifts he
has received with any display of self-importance or conceit. His statements
and acts (in contrast -to those of Francis of Assisi- Francis' consciousness
was that he had atoned for his sins and was pleasing to God) are in
consonance with what the ascetics detail in the Philokalia, about the humble
man. In the words of St Isaac the Syrian:
The truly righteous always think within themselves that they are unworthy
of God. And that they are truly righteous is recognized from the fact that
they acknowledge themselves to be wretched and unworthy of God's concern and
confess this secretly and openly and are brought to this by the Holy Spirit
so that they will not remain without the solicitude and labour which is
appropriate for them while they are in this life. [31]
Francis' emotional impulses toward humility, similar to the above mentioned
incident in the square of Assisi, were in general rare manifestations.
Usually his humility appeared not as a feeling, but as a rational
recognition of his weak powers in comparison to the Divine Power of Christ.
This was clearly stated in his vision on Monte La Verna when, "two great
lights," as it says in the chronicle, "appeared before Francis: one in which
he recognized the Creator, and the other in which he recognized himself. And
at that moment, seeing this, he prayed: Lord! What am I before You? What
meaning have I, an insignificant worm of the earth, Your insignificant
servant, in comparison to Your strength?" By his own acknowledgement,
Francis, at that moment, was submerged in contemplation in which he saw the
endless depth of the Divine Mercy and the abyss of his own nothingness.
Needless to point out, it is the first declaration of the "two great
lights," that manifestly bares the cognitive character of his subsequent
query addressed to God which, in essence, is a very daring process of
comparison. There appears, therefore, a severe contradiction in the passage
that cannot be compared in any sense to the lucid scriptural or patristic
accounts regarding humility.
St Seraphim's humility, as noted, was not so much a rational consciousness
of his sins, but a constant deeply felt emotion. In his teachings, both oral
and written, nowhere does it say that he compared himself to the Divinity,
drawing conclusions from this regarding his spiritual status. He constantly
gave himself up only to a single emotional impulse: the feeling of his own
unworthiness (imperfection) which resulted in heartfelt contrition. Theophan
the Recluse, a Russian ascetic of the Orthodox Church, expressed the sense
of this thus: "The Lord accepts only the man who approaches Him with a
feeling of sinfulness. Therefore, he rejects anyone who approaches Him with
a feeling of righteousness." [32]
If, as a result of the above, one were to draw a conclusion about Francis'
humility on the basis of the ascetic prescriptions for monastics regarding
humility in the Philokalia, then the Latin mystic does not appear as the
ideal of Christian humility. A substantial dose of his own righteousness was
added to his consciousness that he was pleasing to God. Something similar,
from an Orthodox analysis of Francis' mysticism, may be applied from Lev
Tolstoy's story Father Serge: "He [the ascetic Serge] thought," says
Tolstoy, "about how he was a burning lamp, and the more he felt this, the
more he felt a weakening, a quenching of the spiritual light of truth
burning in him." [33]
Recalling St Nilos' warning, mentioned before, this sad evaluation of the
spiritual results of Francis' asceticism is corollary, or more to the point,
is an antecedent plani to the severe beguilement he underwent on Monte La
Verna, where he announced that he had become a great luminary.
Thus, Francis' consciousness that he also was "a light," that he had the
gift to know how to be pleasing to God, meets with the dour pronouncement of
the father of the ascetic life, Antony the Great, who states that if there
is not extreme humility in a person, humility of the whole heart, soul and
body, then he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. [34] St Antony's
affirmation recognizes that only deep humility can root out the evil mental
power leading to self-affirmation and self-satisfaction. Only such humility
entering into the very flesh and blood of the ascetic can, according to the
sense of the teaching of the Orthodox Christian ascetics, save him from the
obsessive associations of prideful human thought.
Humility is the essential power which can restrain the lower mind with its
mental passions, [35] creating in a man's soul the soil for the unhindered
development of the higher mind, [36] and from there, through the Grace of
God, to the highest level of the ascetic life-knowledge of God.
"The man wise in humility," says St Isaac the Syrian, "is the source of the
mysteries of the new age." [37]
CONCLUSION
The chief cause which obfuscated the path of Francis' ascetic life may be
attributed to the fundamental condition of the Roman Catholic Church in
which Francis was nurtured and trained. In the conditions of that time and
in the conditions of the Roman Church itself, true humility could not be
formed in the consciousness of the people. The "Vicar of Christ on earth"
himself with his pretensions not only to spiritual, but also to temporal
authority, was a representative of spiritual pride. Spiritual pride greater
than the conviction of one's own infallibility cannot be imagined. [38] This
basic flaw could not but affect Francis' spirituality, as well as the
spirituality of Roman Catholics in general. Like the Pope, therefore,
Francis suffered from spiritual pride. This is very evident in his farewell
address to the Franciscans when he said: "Now God is calling me, and I
forgive all my brethren, both those present and those absent, their offenses
and their errors and remit their sins as far as it is in my power." [39]
These words reveal that on his death bed, Francis felt himself to be
powerful enough to remit sins like the Pope. It is known that the remission
of sins outside the Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist in the Roman
Church was a prerogative of papal power. [40] Francis' assumption of this
prerogative could only have been with the assurance of his own sanctity.
In contrast, the ascetics of Holy Orthodoxy never allowed themselves to
appropriate the right of remitting sins. They all died in the consciousness
of their own imperfection and with the hope that God in His Mercy would
forgive them of their sins. It suffices to recall the words of the great
fifth century Thebaid ascetic Saint Sisoe in support of this. Surrounded at
the moment of his impending repose, by his brethren, he appeared to be
conversing with unseen persons, as the chronicle relates, and the brethren
asked: "Father, tell us with whom you are carrying on a conversation?" St
Sisoe answered, "They are angels who have come to take me, but I am praying
them to leave me for a short time so that I may repent." When the brethren,
knowing that Sisoe was perfect in virtue, responded, "You have no need of
repentance, father," the Saint answered, "Truly I do not know if I have even
begun to repent." [41]
Finally, as evidenced in the preceding paragraphs, the mysticism of Francis
of Assisi reveals that this highly regarded founder of the Franciscan Order
moved progressively in his life in a growing condition of plani from the
time he heard the command to renew the Roman Catholic Church, through the
extraordinary vision of the Crucified Christ on Monte La Verna and until the
time of his death. As startling as it may appear to some, he bore many
characteristics which are prototypical of Antichrist, who will also be seen
as chaste, virtuous, highly moral, full of love and compassion, and who will
be regarded as holy (even as a deity) by people who have allowed carnal
romanticism to replace the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Church.
The sad fact is that the attainment of a true spiritual relationship with
Christ was never a possibility for Francis, for being outside the Church of
Christ, it was impossible that he could have received Divine Grace, or any
of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. His gifts were from another spirit.
Endnotes
1. Guerier, V., Francis, pp 312-313.
2. Seventeen year old Luisa Lato, usually enjoying complete good health,
fell into a condition of ecstasy every Friday; blood flowed from her left
side, and on her hands and feet were wounds exactly corresponding to the
position of the wounds on the body of the crucified Saviour, in the form of
the wounds depicted on crucifixes.
3. Guerier, pp 314-315.
4. Ibid., p 308.
5. Dumas, G., "La Stigmatisation chez les mystiques cretiens," Revue des
deux Mondes, 1 May 1907; in Guerier, pp 315-317.
6. Guerier, p 315.
7. According to the Orthodox, the Cross was not a necessity imposed on God,
nor was the blood of the Only-begotten Son a source of satisfaction to God
the Father, as the Latin Scholastics teach. The matter of "satisfying the
Divine Justice of God" is a phrase nowhere to be found in the Scriptures,
nor in the writings of the Church Fathers, but was a fabrication of Anselm
of Canterbury (ca 1100) which was developed by Thomas Aquinas to become the
official soteriological doctrine in the Latin West. (compare this with
Athanasius the Great, The Incarnation of the Word of God).
8. It will be evident from the comparison in this paper that "mysticism'' in
the Orthodox Church is beyond all sensory as well as all rational
categories. The normative for this in the ascetic life is dispassion, or
detachment from all needs, feelings and even, ultimately, thoughts, positive
or negative (compare, Abba Evagrios to Anatolios, cited above, p 9).
9. See the life of St Isaaky the Recluse of the Kiev-Caves, God's Fools.
Synaxis Press, Chilliwack, B.C., Canada, 1976, p 21.
10. Hyperconsciousness, p 292-293, 2nd ed.
11. Kadloubovsky, E. and Palmer, G., Early Fathers from the Philokalia, "St
Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training," Faber and Faber, London,
1959. (hereafter referred to as Early Fathers).
12. Early Fathers, p 140, paragraphs 114, 115, 116.
13. Saint Seraphim of Sarov, pp 61-62 (Rus. ed.), cited in the notes
translated from the Russian, see above.
14. Philokalia, Vol 3, p 322, para 103 (Greek ed.).
15. Early Fathers, p 297, 47.
16. Op. cit., p 105, para 71.
17. Works of St. Isaac the Syrian, 3rd ed., Sermon 8, p 37.
18. Philokalia, Vol 2, p 467, para 49. Here we must note that the quoted
dictum of St Isaac the Syrian-that a spiritual vision is unexpected-should
not be understood as an absolute law for all instances of such visions. By
way of an exception to the cited dictum, but as completely exceptional
phenomena, certain holy ascetics have had such unusual visions which were
anticipated by them; but they had a presentiment as an unconscious prophecy,
as a prophecy about what unavoidably must happen. Such an exceptional
instance, as it were, a prophecy of a miracle which was going to happen,
occurred with St Serge of Radonezh at the end of his life. This instance is
described in detail in the Russian work, Hyperconsciousness, p 377. (The
bibliography was not available to the author. It was cited in the notes
translated from the Russian, see above.)
19. See footnote 13, Ch 1, pp 13-22.
20. "Go by two's to various regions of the earth, preaching peace to people
and repentance for the remission of sins." Guerier, p 27 (cf Mk.6:7-12.)
21. Guerier, p 115.
22. Khrapovitsky, Antony, Confession: A Series of Lectures on the Mystery of
Repentance. Holy Trinity Monastery Press, Jordanville, N.Y., 1975.
23. Guerier, p 127 (our emphasis).
24. Op. cit., p 129.
25. Op. cit., pp 103-104.
26. Brown, Raphael, The Little Flowers of St. Francis. Image Books, Garden
City, N.Y., 1958, p 60.
27. Ibid., p 63.
28. Guerier, p 124.
29. The word passions, as used here, denotes all the contranatural impulses
of man (pride, vanity, envy, hatred, greed, jealousy, etc.) that resulted
after the disobedience and fall of the forefathers.
30. Motovilov, N.A., A Conversation of St. Seraphim. St Nectarios Press,
Seattle, 1973 (reprint).
31. Works of St. Isaac the Syrian, 3rd ed., Sermon 36, p 155.
32. Collected Letters of Bishop Theophan, 2nd part, Letter 261, p 103.
33. Posthumus Artistic Works of L. Tolstoy, Vol 2, p 30.
34. Philokalia, Vol 1, p 33.
35. Hyperconsciousness, On Mental Passions, 2nd ed., pp 65-74.
36. See above, On the Lower and Higher Minds, pp 6-23.
37. Works of St. Isaac the Syrian, p 37.
38. Compare Dostoevsky, The Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov.
39. Sabbatier, p 352.
40. In the 15th century, Luther protested against this prerogative as
expressed in the practice of granting indulgences.
41. Lives of Saints, Book 11, pp 119-120.
Originally printed in Synaxis: Orthodox Christian Theology in the 20th
Century, Vol. 2, pp. 39-56. Authored by the now-reposed George Macris, who
was a Priest in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in Portland, Oregon at
the time of this writing. Synaxis is published by the New-Ostrog Monastery
in Canada.
+ + +
Francis of Assisi
In the OCA, we have a strong devotion to St. Francis of Assisi, and a lot of
us have Icons of him....Your bishop's opposition to this great Christian
figure is strange. I read a statement in which he said that while he enjoyed
some of the poetry of St. Francis, that he was not a Saint and was
spiritually deluded. No Orthodox writer of father ever said anything like
that. Nicholas Zernov once compared St. Francis to St. Seraphim of Sarov.
Your bishop's views are not traditional, it seems to me, and you are the
real innovators. (M.P., NY)
The Orthodox Church does not include Francis of Assisi among its Saints. He
was a fanatic Papist, lived after the separation of the Roman Catholic
Church from Orthodoxy, and practiced a romantic and emotional spirituality
foreign to genuine Orthodox spiritual traditions. One can indeed appreciate
the literature attributed to Francis, as Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna has
rightly pointed out, but devotion to him, let alone in the form of the
veneration of his "Icons," is wholly un-Orthodox. We would hope that what
you say about such in the OCA is exaggerated; if not, perhaps that
jurisdiction's Greek Catholic roots are showing and need, to be sure, some
trimming.
With regard to the Fathers of the Church, among whom no sober individual
has-whatever his opinion of the man-ever included Nicholas Zernov, Francis
of Assisi is not held in high esteem in Patristic writings.
Characteristically, St. Ignaty (Brianchaninov), the famous ascetic Bishop
recently Glorified by the Moscow Patriarchate, speaks of Francis' life in
the context of spiritual delusion:
'When Francis was caught up to heaven,' says a writer of his life, 'God
the Father, on seeing him, was for a moment in doubt to as [sic] to whom to
give the preference, to His Son by nature or to His son by grace-Francis.'
What can be more frightful or madder than this blasphemy, what can be sadder
than this delusion[?]! [The Arena, Ch. 11]
For several centuries, various Orthodox intellectuals-among them, Nikos
Kazantzakis (1885-1957), the famous Greek writer, and numerous Slavic men of
letters (e.g., S. Sitianovich [1629-16701, L. Tolstoy [1828-1910], and many
of the "Paris School" in the twentieth century)-have succumbed to the lure
of a theatrical and romantic Western vision of sanctity largely unknown in
the pre-Schism East or West (except as a symptom of spiritual delusion), but
perfectly captured in the cultus of Francis of Assisi. Not only have these
individuals contributed to the distortion of our Orthodox Faith, a
distortion which still plagues the Church, but have sometimes betrayed the
Church and lost their personal Faith. The kind of splenetic firmness that
your question shows in calling untraditional Archbishop Chrysostomos' wholly
traditional outlook on Francis of Assisi, we are obliged to say, is a first
step in the process by which these individuals came to spiritual ruin. We
would ask you and all those with a personal, emotional commitment-and
especially a peevish one-to post-Schism Western notions of sanctity and to
post-Schism Western "saints" to reflect on this observation.
Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 2, 41-42.
OrthoNews2
New Skete is the collective term for three Orthodox Christian monastic
communities in Cambridge, New York:
a.. The Monks of New Skete, a men's monastery founded in 1966,
b.. the Nuns of New Skete, a women's monastery founded in 1969, and
c.. the Companions of New Skete, a community of married monastics founded
in 1982.
All three communities are under the omophorion of the Metropolitan of the
Orthodox Church in America. They are best-known in the world at large for
their breeding and training of German Shepherds as companions and guide
dogs; the Monks have written several best-selling dog-training textbooks.
Among Orthodox Christians, they are unique in that they have instituted
wide-ranging reforms to the divine office and eucharistic liturgies of the
Eastern Orthodox Church, aimed at rendering the services more
comprehensible. They maintain an extremely open stance regarding ecumenical
contacts with other Christian groups; the nave of their newer temple
features iconographic portraits of prominent non-Orthodox such as Pope John
XXIII, Archbishop Michael Ramsey, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and the
communities celebrate the feast of the Roman Catholic saint Francis of
Assisi. This openness has brought them criticism from Orthodox conservatives
and traditionalists; but the Monks and Nuns strongly defend their renewal of
liturgy and monastic life as a necessity if Orthodox monasticism is to be
more than "museum-keeping" in the modern world. The monastery has also
attracted the presence of a small but vibrant lay community of cradle
Orthodox Christians and converts from the surrounding area.
http://www.answers.com/topic/new-skete
OrthoNews2
>
> The Orthodox Church never invaded and sacked Rome. It never put one of
> its bishops on the papal throne. It never resorted to deceit, forgery
> and blackmail in order to restore "unity". It never hived off large
> groups of your faithful and set them up as "counter-Churches" in
> catholic nations. When Roman Catholics come to Orthodoxy, it is they
> who do the coming; we don't try to entrap them.
>
> Because of the history of relations between us, you may sometimes have
> to show more patience with us than we do with you. Our suspicions run
> deep and flair up easily.
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America
Copyright 2000 St. Michael the Archangel Church
Did you know that the classical Gothic Cathedral of Notre Dame in Amiens,
largest in France, was built to contain the head of St. John the Baptist.
stolen during the commission of one of the greatest crimes in history: the
sack of Constantinople by the Latin West at the time of the Fourth Crusade?
It is but one of the countless examples of treasures looted from that
Orthodox city after its capture. This is an account of that event. telling
what has to be told, about which the Orthodox Church long has been silent.
The Crusades were fought with several aims in mind: to free the Holy Land,
to stop the spread of Islam, and to unify the Eastern and Western Churches.
They failed in all of these: the holy places remained under Mohammedan
control, Islam extended its influence, and a deeper wedge was driven between
the two churches. If anything, the Crusades hastened the demise of the
Byzantine Empire and its ultimate fall into Moslem hands. Overall, the
Crusades had a devastating effect on the Orthodox Church.
Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Crusade in 1196. Essentially, it was a
French enterprise, supported by Swabians, and later, by Venetians. Because
Mohammedan power had shifted from Palestine to Cairo, the objective was to
take Egypt. This meant launching a maritime campaign, requiring ships and
related supplies, which the French did not have. They turned to Venice,
ruled by the aged, blind doge Enrico Dandolo, who hated the capital city and
envied its wealth and success in commerce. Constantinople and Venice were
old rivals.
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on
Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All
conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the
Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of
schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely
blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed
by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down
with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000
silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights
for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the
Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it
came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were
infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event,
the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood
before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were
Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles
and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.
Their own historian wrote that the Crusaders never had imagined that there
could be a city like this anywhere in the world. These men, who came from
mud huts with thatched roofs, gaped in astonishment. Here it was: the
imperial city, called "Tsargrad" by the Russians, greatest in the world, hub
of culture and commerce, center of the civilized world. Here was more wealth
than in all of Europe put together. This was the inheritor of the Roman
Empire. Here was a city of churches, monasteries, palaces, towers, forums,
arenas, bazaars, baths, libraries and monuments. Here stood Hagia Sophia
(Holy Wisdom), crowning glory of the city, marvel of the world, built by
Justinian six centuries earlier. The Theotokos being the patron and
protectress of the city, over a hundred churches were dedicated in her name.
Her maphorion, which twice had saved the city: once from the Avars and once
from the Russ', was kept in the Blacharnae Church, as was her wonder-working
icon. The Theotokos' belt (zone) was preserved in the Chalkprateia Church in
the copperware district. In the center of the city stood the Church of the
Holy Apostles, built as a shrine for St. Luke, and which also was the
custodian of the relics of Sts. Timothy and Andrew, as well as the head of
St. John the Forerunner, in whose name there were some 35 churches. St. John
Chrysostom was brought to this church from far-off Armenia for burial eight
centuries earlier. Elsewhere were the relics of St. Stephen and St. James,
as was the wood of the True Cross found by St. Helena. The Pantacrator
Monastery was the guardian of the Icon of the Theotokos of Nicopeia, which
preceded the emperor into battle. At Blacharnae stood two gigantic pillars,
on the tops of which sainted stylites in past centuries had spent the
remaining years of their lives in prayer and meditation. Throughout the city
were numerous other churches and monasteries which guarded the many relics
of Apostles, martyrs and Church fathers. Such was the city before which the
western armies stood in awe and disbelief.
After receiving absolution, the Crusaders attacked. Constantinople fell
after three days of the final, furious attack by land and by sea. Once
inside the walls, the Crusaders began an orgy of carnage, brutality and
vandalism not seen in Europe since the barbarians invaded seven centuries
earlier. No one was spared: not bishop, priest, nun, man, woman or child.
Few women escaped being violated, whether at home, in the street, or in the
convent. Fires were started throughout the city. The butchery ended only
when the Crusaders were so tired that they no longer could lift their
swords. Then began looting and profanation on a scale unparalleled in
history. A mob rushed into Santa Sophia. With the Image of the Pantacrator
looking down upon them from the great dome, they broke up the altar for its
gold content, smashed the icons, threw the Holy Gifts to the floor, seized
the church vessels for their Jewels, and tore mosaics and tapestries from
the walls. Horses and mules were brought into the church the better to carry
off the sacred vessels, gold, silver, and whatever else they could gather.
Drunken soldiers drank from chalices and ate from patens while riding asses
draped with priestly vestments. A mocking prostitute was placed on the
Patriarch's chair to dance and sing obscene songs. This pattern of pilferage
and desecration was repeated in churches, monasteries and palaces throughout
the city. The tombs of the emperors were rifled, and all of the classical
statues and monuments which had survived from ancient Greece and imperial
Rome were destroyed. One writer wrote that never in history had so much
beauty, so much superb craftsmanship been so wantonly destroyed in so short
a space of time. What was not carried off was burned, smashed, melted down
for its precious metal content, or stripped for its jewels.
After the killing, after the city had been subdued, there began a slow and
steady removal of treasures out of the Orthodox temples and into the
cathedrals, churches, monasteries, convents, cities and towns of Latin
Europe. Some of these items had been venerated, cherished, and protected for
centuries, others for a millennium. Now they were being carted away from
over a hundred and fifty churches: altars, altar screens, tabernacles,
antimins, icons, icon frames, processional, pectoral and altar crosses, gold
and silver chains, panagias, mitres, croziers, chalices, patens, star covers
and spears, Gospels, Epistle books, ladles, church plate, censers, votive
lights, relics, candelabra, epitaphia, fans, reliquaries, vestments,
banners, manuscripts, miniatures, ivories, carvings, mosaics, thrones,
tapestries, furniture and architectural items. Cartloads of gold and silver
from Santa Sophia found their way into the Vatican treasury. Constantinople
had become the gold mine which supplied Latin Christendom.
The wealth was so great that the looting continued for sixty years. A
century earlier, after the First Crusade, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Edessa
were similarly stripped for a period of forty years. Now it was happening to
the imperial city. A scandalous traffic in relics was started. The head of
St. John the Baptist was carried off to Amiens. Amalfi, Italy took the head
of St. Andrew the First-Called from the Church of the Holy Apostles, along
with a set of heavy bronze doors. The bishop of Soissons shipped home the
head of St. Stephen and a relic of St. John. The remains of St. Clement,
pillaged from the Church of St. Theodosia, were taken to Cluny. St. Albans
received the relics of St. Marina. Halbstadt claimed the relics of St.
James. The True Cross was divided up among the barons, with a portion sent
to the pope, and another fragment taken to Paris. A priceless gold and
enamel reliquary encrusted with jewels, containing a fragment of the Wood
wound up in a nunnery in Steuben. King Louis IX of France paid 10,000 silver
marks for the "true" Crown of Thorns, for which he built St. Chapells in
Paris.
Gone was the maphorion of the Theotokos, as was her zone and the
wonder-working icon. Gone or destroyed--the relics of St. Luke and St.
Timothy; no trace of the relics of St. John Chrysostom. An altar cloth with
the relic of St. Paul was missing. Nothing is known of the stone seat of St.
Mark.
The Venetians were the most discriminating--they knew exactly what to take.
From the Monastery of the Pantacrator they appropriated a group of exquisite
gem-crusted enamel cameos, (a vast collection of panagias), to enhance the
Palo D'Oro, an elaborate Byzantine bejeweled gold screen which was used in
the Cathedral in Venice to cover the relics of St. Mark. (We will recall
that St. Mark was stolen from Alexandria in the ninth century). They also
carried off the Icon of the Theotokos of Nikopeia, as well as a relic of St.
Stephen (the feet already were in Venice). The golden tabernacle from the
Church of the Holy Apostles, a replica of the church itself, was added to
their booty. Venice's prized possessions are the four magnificent glided
bronze horses, cast in Constantine's time, which once stood in the
Hippodrome; today, except when removed for cleaning, they stand atop the
gallery of St. Mark's basilica. The porphyry statue of four tetrarchs, taken
from a palace, stands in a corner of St. Mark's treasury.
Venetians valued craftsmen, and they took away the best: goldsmiths,
silversmiths, jewel workers, iconographers, woodcarvers, stone and glass
workers. Much of the Venetian glass technique so famous today originated in
Constantinople. St. Mark's contains the finest collection of Byzantine
craftsmanship in the world. It includes 32 Byzantine chalices, plus assorted
relics, reliquaries, altar pieces, Gospels, Jewels, vestments, manuscripts
and church plate. The collection includes the Veroli casket, the finest
Byzantine carved ivory in the world, and the Psalter of Emperor Basil.
Dandolo sent home shiploads of mosaics, panels, stones, pillars, precious
marbles, columns of rare stones and the many building components which have
gone into creating the texture of the city which today is Venice.
Pope Innocent was very distressed when he heard about the outrages in
Constantinople. He denounced the perpetrators harshly, and excommunicated
most of them. The pope was unaware that, before the attack, his legate had
absolved the Crusaders from their original vows. Later, when confronted with
the possibility that he might have a unified church on his hands, Innocent
acquiesced and went along with the reality that what was done was done. He
did nothing to stop the flow of desecrated wealth into Latin cathedrals and
churches.
Baldwin of Flanders was put on the throne and a Latin kingdom was
established in the East. A Venetian replaced the Patriarch . Orthodox
bishops were deposed and replaced by Roman prelates. Pressure was put on
priests to submit to the papacy, but they resisted firmly. There was no
union.
Dandolo demanded for Venice "one half and one quarter of the Roman Empire"
as its share of conquered lands. Along with other territories, Venice took
over all of the Greek islands, which it was to four centuries. On Crete all
of the churches were seized, the bishops were thrown out, and the priests
forced to submit to Latin prelates. The Greek language was forbidden in the
churches. A precious relic, the head of St. Titus, was taken away to Venice,
(A century earlier, Venetians carried off the head of St. Isidore from the
island of Chios, and the relics of St. Donatus from the island of
Cephalonia, as well as a marble slab on which Christ was supposed to have
stood. ) The looting continued on the islands as on the mainland. The empire
was being stripped bare.
Enrico Dandolo performed his final and lasting profanation of Hagia Sophia
by being buried there. Recently, when asked whether he knew the location of
Dandolo's tombstone, a Greek scholar replied, "Yes, I go there to spit on
it".
One might ask, "Why bring up something which happened so long ago? It is
past history." The answer is simple. These church items were not taken from
a dead, vanquished emperor; they were taken from a living, active,
performing Orthodox Christian Church. They were stolen from the Patriarchate
of Constantinople, in whose care they were placed. The Patriarchate of
Constantinople still exists. It is a viable, active body which has been
functioning without interruption since it was rounded by the Second
Ecumenical Council in 381 AD. This is not the first time such depredations
had taken place. Of the five sees extant after the Second Council, three of
them: Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople all had been violated by the one
which was accorded primacy , but which demanded supremacy.
It is easier to report on these deplorable events than it is to suggest what
to do about it. Picketing Latin institutions with placards and chanting
slogans would be foolhardy and non-productive. After all, the problem is not
entirely that of the Orthodox Church. Someone does have a problem. Whoever
possesses these articles is a receiver of, stolen goods. Moreover, they are
a receiver of stolen goods obtained by murder, rape, and desecration--not an
enviable position in which to be, especially if such a holder happens to be
a Christian church. Unfortunately, there is little to indicate that "the
West", to use a general expression, even realizes the enormity that has
taken place in Constantinople so long ago.
The Orthodox Church long has been accustomed to suffering in silence.
Perhaps it is time we learned a lesson from other religions or nations: that
when a calamity befalls you--be sure that the world never is permitted to
forget. A great injustice persists, even after almost eight centuries:
sacred Orthodox items are being held by a Christian church, items acquired
under most distressing circumstances. This is what we must never let the
world forget, by one means or another. Perhaps one day, by the grace of God,
this great wrong will be made right.
In the meantime, scientists tell us that Venice slowly is sinking into the
Adriatic. It deserves to do so. Perhaps it is trying to hide from its sins.
LiamToo
> The Orthodox Church never invaded and sacked Rome.
Ah, so you guys like to re-live the dark ages. Before the crusaders
went to Constantinople, the Latin citizens of that city were
massacred. Boys, girls, women , children.
Why do Christians like to sling mud at each other?
LiamToo
> they went from the dark to the Light, good
Yep, they have to cling to what is good, because in their website, we
read, "The nave of their newer temple features iconographic portraits
Dan
I don't know. I thought this thread was at an end.
To hint that there can be any comparison between the stains on the
historical records of our two Churches is enough to take one's breath
away. To compare a microbe with an elephant only calls attention to
the dimensions of the elephant.
If only the dark ages HAD ended with the crusades. From our
perspective, they continued until the pontificate of John XXIII. That
is when the good faith that we now see came into existence. We haven't
had all that much time to adjust to this new "Christian" spirit, and
even now, equivocation and subversion, particularly vis-a-vis "Eastern-
rite Catholic" groups have not completely ceased.
The "massacre" to which you referred, had to do with the fact that the
"Latins" in question were exploitive Venetian merchants who had
succeeded at subverting and dominating the economy of the Imperial
city. It did not involve the Church or religious antagonism. It was no
St. Bartholomew's day massacre....
Now if you don't like "slinging mud", it is up to you to let this
thread in an Orthodox newsgroup come to an end.
Dan
> "LiamToo" <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
This is precisely why I entered this thread in the first place. To
refer to New Skete's eccentricities in this fashion is very
objectionable. It is like trying to say that SSPX antisemitism is
typically Roman Catholic.
OrthoNews2
***Citing historical fact is slinging mud?