In Thy Light Shall We See Light: A Defense of the Theology of Father John Romanides

Due to its length, we have also made this work available in print and ebook formats that can be purchased through Amazon:

LINK:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DN99KBZJ?ref_=pe_93986420_774957520

The above link is for Amazon US, the book should also be available in the EU, Canada, UK, Australia and other Amazon marketplaces if one searches for the book title.

We recommend reading this work in its printed form, but have also made the complete text available here for free on the Phos Publications website.

Feel free to contact us at:
contact@phospublications.com or at https://x.com/PhosPublication

“There is no similarity at all between what is created and what is uncreated.” This statement encapsulates the chasm between the experiential theology of the Orthodox Church and the man-made philosophical and religious systems of the world. For many people today, their only exposure to this statement is the Greek Orthodox priest and theologian Fr. John Romanides. Reactions range from that of embrace, to misunderstanding, to charges of heresy. Far from being new to Romanides, this is a cornerstone of Orthodox patristic theology, not just on the level of academic theology; it cuts deeply to the heart of the spiritual-ascetic life of the Church. In our impoverished age, where so many of us are cut off from the experience of true holiness that is seen in those who have become true friends of Christ, these words seem foreign. Fr. John recognized this in his own lifetime, and sought, in his own way, to free his fellow Greeks and all Orthodox from the shackles of western-heterodox theological methodology. His approach was often bold and audacious and although he is beloved amongst many monastics, clergy, and laypeople to this day, he was and still is often misunderstood. This book seeks to better clarify such misunderstandings, to illuminate the importance of Fr. John Romanides in the history of 20th century Orthodox academic theology, and to defend the patristic teaching that it is only a life of prayer and asceticism, not philosophy, that can provide man with the knowledge of God.

Introduction

Fr. John Romanides was a Greek Orthodox priest and theologian, beloved and respected by many, whose books are cherished amongst the monastics of Mount Athos, as well as traditionally-minded Orthodox clergy and laypeople across Greece and beyond.

In the words of his close student, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos:

“Father John Romanides of blessed memory, Professor of Dogmatics at the Theological School of the University of Thessaloniki, was no ordinary theologian… It is a fact that anyone reading or listening to Fr. John Romanides realized that he expressed the theology and life of the Fathers of the 4^th century: of the great Cappadocian Fathers of the Church and the ascetics of the desert… Fr. John Romanides is a ‘remnant’ of the 4^th century who lived in the 20^th century. Or, to put it more aptly, he was a 20^th century theologian, actually a professor of a Theological School, who had nevertheless been carried back to the ‘spirit’ of the 4^th century saints and who gave it expression.

Fr. John Romanides does not, of course, express a theology of his own but the theology of the Church. He relies on the experience of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers, as expressed through purification, illumination and glorification,^[1] and experienced in noetic prayer of the heart and the theoria-vision of God. This theology is not connected with the scholasticism or moralism that were cultivated in the West and transferred into our part of the world as well.

…

The keys to empirical theology are man’s progress from being in God’s image to being in His likeness, from the state of being a servant to being a paid worker and a son, from purification to illumination and glorification, from selfish love to unselfish love. It is a theology of revelation, which is connected with man’s glorification and is subsequently formulated in dogmas and teaching for the cure and guidance of other members of the Church. The basis of Orthodox theology is as simple as that…

Of course no one is infallible and neither was Fr. John Romanides. However, the “spirit” of the theology that he taught is the theology of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers, and accords with the teaching of the Orthodox Catholic Church. The reader should perceive this ‘spirit’ of his teaching, which is the essence of the patristic tradition. I would recommend, even beseech, the reader to look at Fr. John’s teaching in its entirety and not to pick out one phrase, take it in isolation and draw conclusions that are contrary to what he says elsewhere. For instance, what he says about dogma should be examined alongside what he says about the revelation of God. His statements about Prophets, Apostles and Fathers ought to be studied together with what he says about uncreated and created words and concepts, and about Holy Scripture and Tradition. This is the only way to gain a complete picture. Otherwise the reader does an injustice to the truth of his words.”^[2]

Fr. John was born in 1927 in Greece to Cappadocian parents who were forced to flee during the population exchange of 1923. They emigrated to Greece a few months after his birth and moved to Manhattan, where he grew up amongst the local Greek Orthodox community. His mother lived a holy life and had visions of angels and saints from her early childhood. She ended her life as a nun and was known to possess spiritual gifts like clairvoyance.^[3]

Fr. John graduated from Holy Cross School of Theology in Boston in 1949, and received a degree from Yale in 1954. He also studied at Columbia, St. Vladimir’s Seminary, and the St. Sergius Institute in Paris. In 1957 he completed his doctoral thesis in Athens, titled The Ancestral Sin, which had an immense impact on academic theology in Greece. Afterwards, he studied at Harvard under Fr. Georges Florovsky. From his wide range of studies, he was highly educated in western heterodox theology as well as Orthodox theology, which placed him in a position to identify with precision and depth the differences between them. In parallel with his studies, he also served as a priest in the Orthodox Church, being ordained in 1951.

In 1970, he moved from the United States to Greece, where he taught Dogmatics at the Theological School of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki for 28 years. It was during this period that he produced the bulk of his major theological works, many of which unfortunately have not yet been translated into English. He also gave many recorded lectures during this time, and it is these recordings that form the basis of the most comprehensive presentation of his theology that exists in English, the Empirical Dogmatics series produced by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos which is cited extensively in this book.

Fr. John reposed in 2001^[4], and his work is widely read to this day. One will find his books for sale at many of the monasteries on Mount Athos as well as the monasteries in North America established by the great Athonite Elder Ephraim of Arizona.

Fr. John’s contribution to academic theology in 20^th century Greece was immense, Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos writes:

“I would go so far as to judge Romanides the first really important Greek academic theologian, if we attribute to this high office those existential characteristics that make an academic a real teacher and an inspired spiritual leader…until the end of the 1960s no professor had appeared who had such a talent for combining the academic with the spiritual and existential…The great contribution of this important theologian to contemporary Orthodox theology is fundamentally his doctoral dissertation, The Ancestral Sin… If we are to summarize Romanides’ achievement in a few words, we could perhaps say that here, for the first time in centuries, the ascetic feat of living within the Church is combined in an unbreakable union with ontology”.^[5]

Likewise, Fr. George Metallinos says:

“We must designate the period ‘before’ Romanides and ‘after’ Romanides. His work is regarded as instructive and as the task of a writer with a fighting spirit. He has really severed our theology from our Scholastic past, which has so far been acting as the Babylonian captivity of our theology”^[6].

Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou likewise said:

“[Romanides] liberated the mindset and theology of Greece from scholasticism and reconnected it with the Holy Fathers”^[7].

Fr. John Romanides was not infallible; in particular his erroneous views on the subject of evolution are highlighted and emphasized by his detractors, despite the fact that this was a topic he wrote very little about. To this criticism, Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou remarked that “he’s a priest, not a pope”^[8], and compared him to Photios Kontoglou and Alexandros Papadiamantis, saying:

“Now if in the attempt to defend against this entire mountain of secularization, Westernization, that they found in Greece at that time, if these blessed men made some small mistakes, we said it, they’re not popes, they’re priests, they’re Orthodox men, they’re fighting men. In the battle, when you go out to fight, you make also some mistakes in strategy, and sometimes you even get wounded”^[9].

It was in the context of this great battle that he waged against the infiltration of a foreign, anti-patristic ethos that Fr. John adopted his characteristic style which was at times bold, audacious, provocative, or even imprecise. As a result, he is to this day often misunderstood by those who have not widely studied his works. Fr. John’s (albeit very few) statements on the topic of evolution are certainly a valid area of criticism, however there are today a number of false accusations circulating, mainly online, in contemporary Orthodox circles regarding what Fr. John believed about a variety of topics. Some seem to even be based on misunderstandings of one single sentence from Fr. John’s works that is taken out of context. There are also those who take issue with the methodology by which Fr. John approached theology; its fundamentally experiential and ascetic nature, where the primary aim is not the construction of systems of conceptual propositions about theology to be pondered by the mind.

The statement that “there is no similarity at all between what is created and what is uncreated”^[10] seems confusing, shocking, and illogical to many. While, according to some, this is an innovative idea introduced to the world by Fr. John, it is, in fact, a central axiom of Orthodox patristic theology that deeply connects to the heart of our spiritual life in the Church. A large portion of this book is dedicated to examining this.

This book has been produced out of love and gratitude for the deposit of teachings that Fr. John has left to the Church, which have had a particular impact on the lives of its authors. It is our goal to present the real Fr. John Romanides to contemporary Orthodox theological discourse, to clarify common misunderstandings, and to offer a defense of the genuine patristic teachings that he has transmitted, which all center on the fact that only a life of prayer and asceticism, not philosophy, can provide man with healing and knowledge of God.

1.) Father John Romanides and the Method of Orthodox Theology

1. i.) The Place of Father John Romanides in the Orthodox Church

1.). i.) a.) Fundamental Orthodox Presuppositions

Before undertaking an examination of a myriad of theological topics, it will be useful to establish some underlying presuppositions that govern the basis upon which these topics are approached. True conversion to Orthodoxy is in the world of prayer and repentance and not only in the world of ideas. We do not become Orthodox Christians merely from book reading nor can true reliable knowledge of God be acquired purely through academic study. To know God, it is essential first of all to live a life of prayer and repentance under the guidance of an experienced spiritual father who is himself connected to the “golden chain” of the saints that St. Symeon the New Theologian speaks of:

“The saints — those who appear from generation to generation, from time to time, following the saints who preceded them — become linked with their predecessors through obedience to the divine commandments, and endowed with divine grace, become filled with the same light. In such a sequence all of them together form a kind of golden chain, each saint being a separate link in this chain, joined to the first by faith, right actions and love; a chain which has its strength in God and can hardly be broken. A man who does not express a desire to link himself to the latest of the saints (in time) in all love and humility owing to a certain distrust in himself, will never be linked to the preceding saints and will not be admitted to their succession, even though he thinks he possesses all possible faith and love for God and for all His saints. He will be cast out of their midst, as one who refused to take humbly the place allotted to him by God before all time, and to link himself to that latest saint (in time) as God had disposed.”^[11]

Without this connection, it is impossible to avoid making errors in the realm of academic theology. It is not only difficult to have sound theology without being connected to the golden chain; it is completely impossible. Fr. Seraphim Rose said that “authentic Orthodox tradition is [passed down] from father to son and not merely from professor to student.”^[12]

Orthodoxy is, simply put, the union of man with God. It is not merely a superior religion or philosophy amongst the other religions and philosophies of the world, nor is it merely a collection of teachings and rituals. The purpose of Orthodoxy is to heal the human person (both soul and body) and unite him with God. Truth is experiential at its highest-level, not conceptual. Truth in concepts has no purpose whatsoever if it is disconnected from guiding man towards the lived experience of God which is completely beyond all concepts. The purpose of the Bible, the Ecumenical Councils, and dogmas of the Church is not to give a philosophical system of concepts by which man gains understanding of the divine, but rather to guide man towards a real lived experience of the divine. This process takes time, discerning guidance, and obedience. St. Sophrony of Essex would say of converts “that usually more than twenty years are required from the time when he was baptized as an Orthodox Christian, under the guidance of an experienced spiritual father, before we are certain that he has learnt to live in an Orthodox way and Orthodox dogma has become his way of life.”^[13]

The idea that one can approach the Fathers with total neutrality is false. Everyone will, to varying degrees, apply their own bias and interpret the Fathers in a particular way, given what intellectual formation and presuppositions they have incorporated into their worldview. The only way to have certainty that one is not falling into error is to be grafted onto the “golden chain” as St. Symeon describes, to be guided by an experienced spiritual father who is himself connected to an organic spiritual lineage of saints. The importance of this not just for academic theological study but the entire Christian life cannot be overstated. One cannot simply interpret the Fathers himself, independently of a connection to the “golden chain”. Such an approach is reminiscent of the Protestant approach to Scripture, where one’s own personal interpretation of the text is touted as “just what the text plainly says.” This exact same approach can be applied to the Fathers and has been a major source of heresies throughout history, one such example being the Monophysite interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

While this work may seem overly critical of philosophy, it should be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with philosophy when it exists in its proper place; its value lies primarily in the right orientation of man’s life. The word philosophy can be used in different senses; the word itself simply means “the love of wisdom”. There is what some Fathers call “practical philosophy”, which is concerned with the virtues and governs man’s behavior in the world.^[14] This is certainly a blessed endeavor and not to be criticized. St. John of Damascus says that “true wisdom is God. Therefore, the love of God, this is true philosophy.”^[15] In the present work, by philosophy we are speaking about logical systems of concepts that are understood by man’s mind, specifically the rational faculty. Concepts and logic are important tools in understanding the creation and in navigating man through life, but their reach does not extend beyond the creation into the uncreated. They can point man towards God but cannot, ultimately, provide man with actual knowledge of God, which is only gained through experience. St. Paul warns against a kind of philosophy which could be referred to as “speculative philosophy”: “Be wary lest there shall be anyone who leadeth you captive through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.”^[16] Any criticisms in the present work against philosophy are against speculative and not practical philosophy, that is, philosophy that exalts itself beyond its proper place in the hierarchy of things, when it attempts to apprehend the divine with the rational faculty through speculative logical formulations, or when it contradicts the divinely inspired teachings of the Holy Fathers.

1.) i.) b.) Father John Romanides in the Lineage of the Saints

Fr. John Romanides was connected to many of the saints and holy elders of Greece during his lifetime.^[17] Respected ecclesiastical figures and holy elders of the Church in recent years have praised Fr. John and claimed that he lived a holy life. He was a spiritual child of the blessed Elder Philotheos Zervakos^[18] (venerated widely around the world as a saint, Elder Philotheos was himself a spiritual child of St. Nektarios of Aegina), and was well acquainted with many venerable 20^th century Greek Elders, such as Fr. Theoklitos of Dionysiou (a leading Athonite figure of his day) who said of Fr. John:

“My good friend and most devout priest, John Romanides, is no ordinary theologian. He learnt Orthodoxy at two or three universities and with the help of ascetism that illumines the soul. With a mastery of four languages and a very solid academic background, he waged a real battle recently with professors of the University of Athens in the field of Orthodox theology, in order to receive his doctorate with his erudite theological book entitled The Ancestral Sin. He is literally a monk, nourished by the holy Fathers and with the holy liturgical life of the Orthodox Church, praising God ‘seven times a day’^[19].”^[20]

In the 1950s, while he was living at the home of the Pateras family and working on his doctoral thesis, Fr. John was a part of a wider spiritual community which included towering Church figures of the period:^[21]

“[The] publishing house ‘Astir’ which from this time on [1955] was spiritually connected with St. Joseph [the Hesychast] and his brotherhood. The Papadimidiu and Patera families, Fr. Panteleimon Metropoulos, Fr. John Romanides, Photios Kontoglou, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. Theocletos of Dionysiou, St. Joseph the Hesychast, and his disciples Fr. Ephraim [the future Elder Ephraim of Arizona] and Fr. Joseph comprised a wider spiritual circle. St. Joseph communicated with them through letters, but whenever his disciples went to Athens, they participated in meetings at the bookstore of Mr. and Mrs. Papadimitriou, and especially at the Patera household in Palaio Psychiko, which has been called ‘a blessed cenobium, a hive of Kollyvades’”.^[22]

Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra said to a theology student, “take every class you can from Fr. John Romanides. He teaches the truth.”^[23] Elder Ephraim of New Skete called Fr. John Romanides “a great man of God with global confession and recognition from the Orthodox world.”^[24]

Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou speaks of Fr. John:

“[Fr. John Romanides was] the last great Greek Theologian of the 20th century”^[25]… “[he was an] academic and ascetic priest…[the manner of his writings] reveals a continuity and a knowledge of empirical theology that all faithful men had upon reaching the state of illumination.”^[26] “[How could] an academic theologian write so clearly on the purification and healing of the nous if he had not personally experienced purification?^[27]…the answer is that the priest John Romanides since his childhood has been experiencing the therapeutical culture of purification and of illumination^[28] through his mother Evlampia.”^[29]

Fr. Georges Florovsky described Fr. John as his “most astute” student and writes of him:

“Generally speaking, there are few theological forces that exist in the Orthodox Church today. I pin my hopes on my student Fr. John Romanides who authored three or four years ago a superior doctoral thesis on the ancestral sin, studying the first two centuries (in Greek in Athens) and is now working near me on his doctorate in philosophy at Harvard. In him, on the other hand [as opposed to French and English Orthodox theologians], there is rather a tendency towards the side of ‘isolationism’ – a turning away from the West in all things and being isolated within the Byzantine Tradition, or truth, and remaining at the level of genuine theological culture and deep ecclesiasticality.”^[30]

1.) i.) c.) The Western Captivity of Orthodox Academic Theology

We saw mentioned previously how Fr. John fought against the influence of the heterodox West that existed in Greek academic theology. In order to appreciate the significance of Fr. John Romanides, one must grasp the magnitude to which Greek Orthodox academic theology was infected by heterodox influence from the West. This western influence was part of a much larger historical phenomenon that is important to understand, referred to as “the Latin Captivity” by Fr. Georges Florovsky. The influence of western theological thinking on Orthodox academic theology, going back centuries, was a problem that many saints spoke of. This influence was felt as early as the 17^th century by St. Paisius Velichovsky, who left the Kiev Theological Academy due to its latinized teaching style.^[31] The founder of the Academy was the Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, who authored many theological texts, most famously his Orthodox Confession.

Fr. Georges Florovsky writes about the Latin influence of this period:

“The Confession [of Peter Mogila] was more closely linked to the Roman Catholic literature of its day than to either traditional or contemporary spiritual life in the Eastern Church…It is certainly significant that Mogila never voiced doctrinal objections to Rome. In dogma, he was privately, so to speak, already at one with the Holy See…Probably the most representative figure of this final chapter in the Mogila era was the Kievan intellectual Ioasaf Krokovskii, reformer, or even second founder, of the Kievan school…At Kiev, he taught theology according to Aquinas and centered his devotional life – as was characteristic of the Baroque era – on the praise of the Blessed Virgin of the Immaculate Conception. It was under his rectorship that student ‘congregations’ of the Kiev Academy known as Marian Sodalites arose, in which members had to dedicate their lives ‘to the Virgin Mary conceived without original sin’ and take an oath to preach and defend against heretics that ‘Mary was not only without actual sin, venal or mortal, but also free from original sin’.

[After Mogila] there was a new and alien spirit, the Latin spirit in everything. Thus, Mogila’s legacy also includes a drastic ‘Romanization’ of the Orthodox Church. He brought Orthodoxy to what might be called a Latin ‘pseudomorphosis’. True, he found the Church in ruins and had to rebuild, but he built a foreign edifice on the ruins. He founded a Roman Catholic school in the Church, and for generations the Orthodox clergy was raised in a Roman Catholic spirit and taught theology in Latin. He ‘Romanized’ the liturgies and thereby ‘Latinized’ the mentality and psychology, the very soul of the Orthodox mentality and psychology, the very soul of the Orthodox people.”^[32]

The Confession of Peter Mogila was a representative theological text of this period, Archbishop Basil Krivoshenie writes:

“[The Confession of Peter Mogila is] a vividly Latin document in form, and sometimes in content and spirit…[it] fully assimilates Latin scholastic terminology…there are almost no references to the Holy Fathers – a characteristic sign of separation from the patristic tradition, which is felt throughout the theology of this symbolic monument.”^[33]

This time period is also commented upon by St. Hilarion Troitsky:

“From the 17^th century, Russian theology begins to fall under Latin influence…In the Trebnik (Book of Needs) of Peter Mogila an idea, unknown to the ancient Church, intrudes: That there is some validity to mysteries performed outside of the Church…It is Latin theology with its opus operatum that the source of this theory of the validity of mysteries performed outside the one Church of Christ lies, a theory which has been adopted by certain of the new Russian theologians.”^[34]

There are many other examples of the significant Latin influence in Russia in the 17^th century. The Synod of Moscow in 1666-67 approved the book of Bishop Simeon of Polotsk, The Rod of Direction, which stated that “Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception”^[35], and included other problematic teachings, including that a child in the womb receives their soul 40 days after conception.^[36] He was later anathematized by a Council in Moscow in 1690.^[37] The Council of Moscow held in 1666-1667 was heavily influenced by Patriarch Macarius III of Antioch and Metropolitan Paisios Ligarides.^[38] Paisios was a secret Uniate, having actually been ordained by the Roman Catholics.^[39] Both hierarchs also adopted the Latin practice of selling indulgences,^[40] and Patriarch Macarius secretly swore loyalty to the Pope in 1662, and even publicly toasted him at a dinner at the French Consulate as his “Holy Father”.^[41]^,^[42]

This problem remained present in Russia, demonstrated quite obviously by that fact that in the 18^th century in Russia there passed a whole 50-year period where not a single Orthodox book was published, while the book markets were full of heterodox books.^[43] When Orthodox books were eventually published in the latter part of the 18^th century, they were sometimes censured and edited by the Censorship Committee of the Russian government.^[44] That is to say, the actual words of the Holy Fathers were censured and edited by the authorities. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov said that “Western enlightenment has flooded Russia so strongly that it also invaded the Church and violated its Eastern Orthodox character”^[45].

Monasticism in Russia also went through a period of persecution in the 18^th century:

“The period of Muscovite Russia which existed under the sign of ‘symphony’, cooperation between Church and the State, came to an end. Humanism produced new ideas, those of ‘natural law’. Now the purpose of the State was the attainment of ‘common good’ (prosperity) for all. The Church too, along with the State, had to contribute to the realization of this good. Secular power became self-contained, to the exclusion of everything else. Thus, a system of absolute State supremacy over the Church came into being. Peter I had carefully studied the church administration of Protestant countries, and, using Scandinavian countries as a model, installed it in Russia.

Measures undertaken against monasteries were particularly harsh. Peter called them ‘gangrene of the State’ and spoke of monks as parasites and cheats. Monks were not allowed to have paper and quills in their cells…Monasteries became depopulated…Many monastery churches were often left without cupolas and crosses, their roofs were overgrown with moss, the cells stood askew, propped up; the monastery walls were dilapidated.”^[46]

St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, however, also notes that these violations against Orthodoxy in Russia did not completely corrupt the “essence of Christianity”^[47]. These theological departures did not constitute a total loss of Orthodoxy in Russia. Rather, this occurred in the realm of academic theology and in what we may refer to today as “mainstream society”, while Orthodox life and spirituality was preserved amongst many simple pious people and in monasteries such as Optina.^[48]^,^[49]

Metropolitan Anthony Krapovitsky, one of the founding bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and its first Metropolitan, said that Western influence was still present in the Russian diaspora after the Bolshevik Revolution:

“Unfortunately, our professors of theology have grown so old, if not by their age, then especially by their links to medieval scholasticism, which has infiltrated our Church through the Catechisms of Lavrenty Zizany, Peter Mohyla, and Metropolitans Philaret and Macarius of Moscow, that they have virtually lost the ability to respond to any fresh theological thought, and, grinding their teeth with annoyance, keep clear of this thought only to the Bolsheviks’ joy.”^[50]

Western influence was not a problem unique to Russia, but was also particularly widespread amongst the Greeks living under Ottoman rule. As mentioned previously, Patriarch Macarius III of Antioch had secretly sworn allegiance to the Pope, and he was not the only Patriarch to do so.^[51] There was an entire “Romanist” party within the Greek Patriarchates during this time, composed of clergy who desired and worked for a reunion with Rome.^[52]

In the 17^th century, particularly in the Greek islands, there was, in practice, an almost effective union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox populations, going far beyond any of the ecumenistic practices that occur in modern times:

“Mixed marriages were frequent; the two sides took active part in one another’s services; western missionaries, with full permission from the Orthodox authorities, preached in Orthodox churches and heard the confessions of the Orthodox faithful; Orthodox received communion from Roman Catholic priests…a Roman Catholic was accepted as godparent at an Orthodox baptism, and vice versa. Both sides frequently acted as though the schism between east and west did not exist… [On Corfu] The Greeks [would] receive communion from Roman priests and go to them for confession. The clergy of the two Churches hold joint processions on Corpus Christi and on Holy Saturday, and even celebrate the Eucharist simultaneously in the same building, although at separate altars…the Greeks read the Epistle first, and then the Latins, and the same thing happens with the Gospel. As for the people, both nations stand mixed up together in front of the two altars, praying together and singing together…On Holy Saturday the Greeks and Latins assemble in one of the Latin churches, and the priests of both sides together carry upon their heads the Epitaphion or Lamb, all together carrying the same Epitaphion, and they go with it to another church.

When the Orthodox Archpriest at Kerkyra died, the Latin clergy of the island used to take part in his funeral procession, wearing vestments and carrying candles…the Orthodox clergy did the same at the funeral of the Roman Catholic bishop…On Zakynthos, as on Kerkyra, joint services were held, and at the end of these functions the clergy of both Churches sang the Φήμαι (Ad Multos Annos) first in honor of the Pope of Rome and then for the Patriarch of Constantinople. On Kephallenia…Orthodox priests [would come out and cense] when the Corpus Christi procession went past their churches and took part in the actual procession…[On Kephallenia] on top of the Orthodox Epitaphion was placed the Latin Blessed Sacrament (whether in a monstrance or a ciborium is not stated), and the Epitaphion with the Sacrament was then carried processionally by the Roman Catholic Archbishop and the Orthodox Archpriest, walking side by side, assisted by two leading layman of their respective Churches. On Andros, where the population was predominantly Orthodox, the Greek bishop and his clergy in full vestments, with candles and torches, took part in the Latin Corpus Christi procession; the same thing occurred on Mykonos and Naxos, and elsewhere…[The] Roman Catholics were allowed to say Mass in Orthodox Churches…there were ‘mixed churches’, with two permanent altars in adjacent sanctuaries, one for the Roman and one for the Byzantine rite. As late as the beginning of the nineteenth century, there were two Orthodox churches on Syros, containing Latin altars still used by Roman Catholic clergy.

[There were many cases where] the Orthodox authorities gladly employed the Latin missionaries as preachers and confessors…The Orthodox Metropolitan of Smyrna, so [a] Jesuit reports, ‘has given his subjects complete freedom to go to our clergy for confession…and to our clergy he has given full power to hear confessions in his church both from Greeks and Latins.’ On Thera the nuns of the Orthodox convent of Saint Nicholas had Jesuit Fathers as their confessors; at Athens a retired Orthodox Metropolitan went regularly for confession to a French Capuchin priest.

In 1628 Ignatius, Abbot of the monastery of Vatopedi on the Holy Mountain, visited Rome and asked the Propaganda to send a priest to set up a school on Athos for the monks…[a Roman Catholic priest] was sent in 1635-6 to Athos and opened a school in Karyes…In 1643 the ruling synod of the Holy Mountain – the Great Epistasia – sent a letter to the Pope, asking that a church be given them in the city of Rome, in which monks from Athos could serve, while at the same time carrying on in their studies; in return they offered a kellion or skete on Athos, for the use of Basilian monks from Italy…The same friendship and trust was displayed by Damaskinos, Greek Metrpolitan of Aegina. In 1680 he wrote a letter to Pope Innocent XI, asking that two Jesuits be sent to the island, qualified to teach and to hear confessions from the clergy and laity of his diocese.”^[53]

These many examples make it quite clear that there was an immense influence on the Greek Orthodox Church coming from the heterodox West. Christos Yannaras emphasizes the seriousness of this phenomenon:

“The Westernization of the Greeks had vital consequences going beyond geographic and national boundaries. It was more than an alienation of a historic people from its roots, or of an ancient local ecclesiastical tradition from its cultural particularity, but affected the whole of human history.”^[54]

It was not only Roman Catholic influence that plagued Greece; the new ideas coming out of the so-called European Enlightenment also found their way into the Greek world from Western Europe. We read in the Synaxarion that “in reaction to this infiltration of western, that is, rationalistic Western Enlightenment thinking, a number of monks emphasized that true strength and liberation could only come through a return to the teachings of the Fathers.”^[55] These monks were known as “the Kollyvades Fathers” and included Sts. Athanasios of Paros, Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Makarios of Corinth and others. They fought against and faced persecution (including from their own hierarchs) for their opposition to the Enlightenment.^[56]

Fr. George Metallinos writes:

“[Saint] Athansios Parios (1722-1813) was the most military of the Kollyvades, and also the most martyric. From 1776-1781 he remained unfrocked as a ‘heretic’ because of his vigorous stand on the issues of tradition. He passionately fought the European Enlightenment, Voltaireanism, and atheism, and was accused of being an obscurantist by his ‘West-struck’ contemporaries.”^[57]

The Greek Revolution of 1821 (which, according to Romanides, was orchestrated by the Western Powers, particularly Britain and France)^[58] gave birth to a new state whose identity was not based in Greece’s heritage as an Orthodox nation. Richard Clogg, a scholar of modern Greek history, writes:

“Early Greek nationalists looked for inspiration exclusively to the classical past…Such attitudes were accompanied by a corresponding contempt for Greece’s medieval, Byzantine past. Adamantios Korais, for instance, the most influential figure of the pre-independence intellectual revival, despised what he dismissed as the priest-ridden obscurantism of Byzantium”.^[59]

St. Athanasios Parios was vocally opposed to Korais and many other likeminded political figures who were devoted to the Enlightenment. Korais and others sought to form the new Greek state around an identity derived from Greece’s distant past in pagan antiquity rather than the heritage of the Orthodox Roman Empire.^[60] Korais unfortunately went on to have an immense influence on the development of education in the new Greek state, and his ideas were taught in schools as the normative curriculum:

“Korais sought to bridge the distance between the ancient Greeks and the modern Greeks through the use of education, especially by republishing classical Greek literature. His work became the leading textbooks in Greek schools”.^[61]

The institutions of the state were also modeled after those of Western Europe:

“[In] 1822 a constitution was adopted. In the context of the time this was a highly liberal document and was clearly intended by its framers to appeal to enlightened opinion in Europe…[they] sought to import western institutions lock, stock and barrel”.^[62]

Following the revolution, the Bavarian prince Otto Friedrich Ludwig (who was a Roman Catholic his entire life, never converting to Orthodoxy)^[63] was enthroned as the king of the new Kingdom of Greece, and with him came a great westernization of Greek society:

“[The new government] showed little sensitivity to Greek tradition in fashioning the institutions of the new state after western European models…The Church settlement of 1833, by which ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate were severed, and the Church was declared autocephalous and subject to a considerable degree of government control, constituted another breach with tradition…The fixation on the classical past was reflected in the great emphasis that was laid in the schools and in the University of Athens on the study of the culture of ancient Greece and on the katharevousa, or ‘purifying form of the language’, a stilted construct that blighted the schooling of generations of children.”^[64]

During the course of a single year (1833-34) in the new Greek state, more monasteries were closed than were during the entire Ottoman period. 412 monasteries were abolished and the property was confiscated by the State. There were only allowed three convents total in the entire Greek Kingdom, nuns were instructed (contrary to the Holy Canons) to renounce monasticism and return to life in the world. Many monastics ended up destitute and living on the streets as a result of the actions of the government.^[65]

The second King of Greece, like Otto, was also not an Orthodox Christian, but a Lutheran, although he was married to the Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna of the Romanov dynasty. He reigned for over 50 years, and so for the first 81 years of its existence the Kingdom of Greece was ruled by a non-Orthodox monarch.^[66]

Continuing into the late 19th century, Western influence remained a problem in Greece that was continually fought against by the contemporary saints. For example, St. Nektarios of Aegina took hard stances against influences from Western Europe that he found at the school he was assigned to teach at.^[67] As a result, he made many enemies and suffered much slander and persecution.

Following a Protestant model, several extra-ecclesiastical organizations were founded in Greece in the 20^th century, the most successful being the Zoe Brotherhood. It was founded in 1907:

“[It] steadily developed into a mass extra-ecclesiastical organization which decisively influenced the faith and devotion of the laity.”^[68]

“[Zoe] established a ‘religionized’ ecclesiastical piety throughout Greece. They imposed an ideological and individualistic idea of faith, a moralistic and legalistic idea of salvation, so that participation in the Eucharist and the other sacraments rewarded personal merit.”^[69]

“The doctrinal teaching of the organizations corresponds closely to the classic theses of the Protestant Reformation…a judicial understanding of the relations between humanity and God, a theory of the satisfaction of divine justice through Christ’s death on the cross, a legalistic view of the transmission of original sin, an interpretation of the general priesthood of believers that gave it an independent status, a disregard for the distinction between the essence and energies of God, and a denial of Hesychasm and the neptic tradition.”^[70]

Fr. John Romanides likewise recognized the piety of Zoe as something alien to traditional Orthodox spirituality:

“There are many young people who dedicate themselves to the Church. However, because they have a distorted perception of salvation, predestination, and sin, instead of going to the Monasteries, they go to Zoe…The Zoe type of piety is so similar to the piety of the non-Orthodox that it will cause havoc if it takes root [here in America].” ^[71]

In the 20^th century, great elders such as St. Paisios the Athonite spoke about the problem of western influence:

“[St. Paisios] believed that the greatest danger facing Orthodox Greeks was their spiritual enslavement. He was greatly troubled as he saw the ever-increasing influence of the worldly western European spirit, even among spiritual people. He was distressed by the various ecumenical movements, which he termed ‘the patchwork of the devil’. Deeply pained, he prayed that God enlighten the Church leaders, so that they not be dazzled by the false light of the West…In a letter he wrote, ‘Unfortunately, western rationalism has even influenced the Eastern Orthodox leaders; and they are therefore only physically in the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ, while their entire being is in the West’.”^[72]

He also decried the influence that the West had on the education of the current generation of Greeks, saying:

“You have theologians today who advise people not to receive Holy Communion because they might catch AIDS!… This kind of theology does not know God…Now you see a professor of Theology who does not believe in God and insults the Prophets in front of the students… This is the result of the influence of Protestants and Catholics! Catholicism is now full of the atheistic spirit…We must be very careful. This is what our young people do. They go to England, France and other countries to study; they catch all kinds of ‘European viruses’, and write dissertations. They study the Greek Fathers in translation, from translations prepared by foreigners. Sometimes, the translators, either because they could not correctly render the meanings and nuances or because they had made a calculated decision not to, added their own erroneous notions. Our own Orthodox scholars, who have learned foreign languages and studied abroad, catch these foreign ‘viruses’, these erroneous notions, and then bring them back here when they return, and even go on to teach them.”^[73]

To summarize the history of Western influence in Greece:

“[From] the 14^th century pro-unionists to the extra-ecclesiastical organizations of the 20^th century, the history of modern Hellenism is one of a progressive alienation from its roots, a reckless, ultimately fruitless, Westernization.”^[74]

Fr. John Romanides had an immense battle to fight in freeing Greek Orthodox academic theology from the extreme western heterodox influences that had been present for centuries. With this context in mind, we can be much more understanding towards Fr. John who, no doubt, often spoke in a particularly polemical and/or imprecise way, and at times also made mistakes while waging this great struggle.

1.) ii.) The Orthodox Approach to Theology

1.) ii.) a.) The Preconditions for Doing Theology

Contrary to the theological methodology of the Scholasticism of the West, the Fathers teach that one cannot understand the meaning of doctrines rationally (let alone spiritually) without living an analogous spiritual life. St. Anthony the Great said that “there is no profit in studying doctrines unless the life of one’s soul is acceptable and conforms to God’s will.”^[75] If dogma is not lived and manifested within one’s life, its true meaning remains inaccessible.

Fr. John characteristically teaches:

“The purpose of the words and concepts [of dogma] is union with God, Who is beyond words and concepts… We think now that salvation means believing Orthodox dogmas. We are like idolaters who take the dogmas, put them in the cupboard and sit there prostrating ourselves before the dogmas, which we do not live in our lives. Dogma is not to be believed. Dogma is to be experienced. Because dogma without experience is heresy. The worst heresy is for people to sit at their desks and assume that they can reflect deeply and think great thoughts about dogmatic issues. That is the greatest stupidity^[76]… If ethics is not linked with dogma it does not save. We ought to have both ethics and dogma to be saved.”^[77]

Theology is not a cognitive exercise in philosophical speculation and analysis; the Church Fathers were first and foremost God-seers, they were not speculative philosophers. They saw God and expressed their experience using created words. Elder Athanasios Mitilinaios speaks of modern philosophers who attempt to know God through intellectual speculation:

“Poor, pitiful philosophers…You do not know anything. You live and exist in your delusions…after Christ, philosophy is useless…[There] can be no philosophy after Christ when heaven is wide open.”^[78]

Metropolitan Heirotheos Vlachos, a close student of Romanides, likewise says:

“In the whole biblico-patristic tradition it is evident that God is not an object of conjecture and logical understanding, but a matter of participation, of revelation. Of course when we say experience we do not mean individual experience such as we find in Eastern religions, but the experience of the Church, as the Prophets, Apostles and the deified of all times lived it. The philosophers usually make conjectures with their minds, while the Fathers formulate what they have seen and heard as far as it can be formulated…They renounce association with the world and creation, they live the apophatic experience, that is to say, the nous returns to the heart from its diffusion in the surroundings and created things and from there it ascends to God.”^[79]

“The Orthodox Church says that if one is to meet God he must rely on his personal participation with the uncreated purifying, illuminating, and deifying energy of God, which is experienced in the Church, by the Holy Mysteries and through personal struggle (asceticism). Personal struggle is the neptic-hesychastic tradition, which is the pre-condition for the comprehension of dogmas and the path in which man meets God. Thus, knowledge of God is not related to philosophy, not to just reading the Holy Scriptures, which is nevertheless important because it gives an account of the experience of deification, but it is connected with the experienced neptic-hesychastic tradition and by living a full life in the Church.”^[80]

We will see below that this is in total unity with the greatest patristic spiritual writings.

St. Peter Damaskos teaches that theology cannot be understood by those who lack humility or are darkened by the passions, regardless of their education:

“It is true, however, that we cannot properly understand the full significance of what we read because of the darkness induced by the passions; our presumption often leads us astray, especially when we rely on the wisdom of this world which we think we possess, and do not realize that we need knowledge based on experience to understand these things, and that if we wish to attain knowledge of God mere reading or listening is not enough. For reading and listening are one thing and experience is another… Similarly, spiritual knowledge is not acquired simply through study but is given by God through grace to the humble. That a person on reading the Scriptures may think that he partially understands their meaning need cause no surprise, especially if that person is at the stage of ascetic practice. But he does not possess the knowledge of God; he simply hears the words of those who do possess this knowledge. Writers like the prophets often did indeed possess divine knowledge, but as yet the ordinary reader does not… For Scripture presents one aspect to most people, even if they think that they understand its meaning, and another to the person who has dedicated himself to continual prayer, that is, who keeps the thought of God always within him, as if it were his breathing… God reveals Himself, as St. John Klimakos states, to simplicity and humility, and not to those who engage in laborious study and superfluous learning. Indeed, God turns away from such learning if it is not allied to humility… As St. Basil remarks, when God finds a heart free from all worldly matters and worldly learning, He then writes on it His own thoughts as if it were a clean slate.”^[81]

St. Gregory of Sinai says is it impossible to understand God’s commandments without living them out:

“To try to discover the meaning of the commandments through study and reading without actually living in accordance with them is like mistaking the shadow of something for its reality. It is only by participating in the truth that you can share in the meaning of truth. If you search for the meaning without participating in the truth and without having been initiated into it, you will find only a besotted kind of wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 1:20). You will be among those whom St. Jude categorized as ‘psychic’ or worldly because they lack the Spirit (cf. Jude 19), boast as they may of their knowledge of the truth.”^[82]

St. Mark the Ascetic says theoretical knowledge divorced from practical knowledge acquired through spiritual struggle is useless:

“Understand the words of Holy Scripture by putting them into practice, and do not fill yourself with conceit by expatiating on theoretical ideas. He who neglects action and depends on theoretical knowledge holds a staff of reed instead of a double-edged sword; and when he confronts his enemies in time of war, ‘it will go into his hand, and pierce it’ (2 Kgs. 18:21), injecting its natural poison.”^[83]

St. John Chrysostom says that the only reason that the Scriptures and written theology even exist at all is because we’ve fallen short of the spiritual life that God desires us to be living:

“It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second-best course.

For that the former was better, God hath made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their [nous]^[84] pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tablets, and the admonition which is given by these.

And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for “He,” saith our Lord, “shall bring all things to your remembrance.”^[85] And that thou mayest learn that this was far better, hear what He saith by the Prophet: “I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them,”^[86] and, “they shall be all taught of God.”^[87] And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law “not in tablets of stone, but in fleshy tablets of the heart.”^[88]

But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.”^[89]

St. Symeon the New Theologian says that it is ridiculous and foolish to suppose that one understands Orthodoxy merely through reasoning about theological writings:

“We think we will receive the full knowledge of God’s truth by means of worldly wisdom, and fancy that this mere reading of the God-inspired writings of the saints is to comprehend Orthodoxy, and that this is an exact and certain knowledge of the Holy Trinity. Nor is this all, but the more august among us foolishly suppose that the [theoria]^[90] which comes to pass only through the Spirit in those who are worthy is the same as the thoughts produced by their own reasoning. How ridiculous! How callous!

Who then among men on earth, wise men, or rhetoricians, or mathematicians, or others, save those who have cleansed their [nous] by the supreme philosophy and asceticism, who thus bring to the task a soul whose perceptions have been thoroughly stripped, could ever know the hidden mysteries of God from merely human wisdom and without the revelation which comes through the Lord from on high?… Knowledge of these things is for them whose [nous] is illumined daily by the Holy Spirit on account of their purity of soul, whose eyes have been clearly opened by the rays of the Sun of righteousness, whose word of knowledge and word of wisdom is through the Spirit alone, whose understanding and fear of God, through love and peace, are preserved firmly in faith by the sanctity and goodness of their way of life. Of such people is the knowledge of divine things, and to them, as to the Apostles whom they imitate, Christ says: ‘To you it has been given to know the mysteries of God, but for others they are in parables.’ ^[91]”^[92]

St. John Climacus says that created words are incapable of providing someone with any knowledge about God if they themselves have no experience of God:

“He who thinks that it is possible to use the visible world in order to describe the awareness and effect of the love of the Lord exactly, holy humility gracefully, blessed purity truly, divine enlightenment clearly, the fear of God honestly, or assurance of heart unerringly, and imagines that by his description of things of this kind he will enlighten those who have never actually experienced them, is like a man who by words and comparisons wants to give an idea of the sweetness of honey to people who have never tasted it. But just as the latter talks in vain, not to say babbles, so the former either gives the impression of having no experience of what he is talking about, or else has become the mere toy of vainglory.”^[93]

Fr. Seraphim Rose says that the genuine patristic tradition is not composed of a chain of academics but rather a chain of spiritual fathers and spiritual children:

“In our confused days, when a hundred conflicting voices claim to speak for Orthodoxy, it is essential to know whom one can trust as a spokesman for true Orthodoxy. It is not enough to claim to speak for Patristic Orthodoxy; one must be in the genuine tradition of the Holy Fathers, not merely ‘rediscovering’ them in a modern academy or seminary, but actually receiving their tradition from one’s own fathers. A merely clever explainer of Patristic doctrine is not in this tradition, but only one who, not trusting his own judgment or that of his peers, is constantly asking of his own fathers what is the proper approach to and understanding of the Holy Fathers.”^[94]

It was this patristic understanding of theology which was at the center of the teaching of Fr. John Romanides. Despite any errors he may have made, his great significance has been to remind us that Orthodox Christians of every age must go beyond simply just reading the Fathers, and must strive to purify the heart of sinful passions and acquire noetic prayer. One reads the Fathers not to merely reflect on theological ideas, but as part of a life directed at acquiring the experiential knowledge of God that the Fathers had, and attaining theosis, which is man’s salvation.

1.) ii.) b.) Authority in the Orthodox Church

The patristic teaching on theology and knowledge of God is clear: in the Orthodox Church those who speak and teach authoritatively about theology are not necessarily academics who have studied the writings of the Fathers, or the bishops or priests by mere virtue of their ecclesiastical rank. Academic study of theology divorced from ascetic life is itself a relatively recent development:

“It was only later that theology became a teaching subject…in an institutional setting – schools and universities. This process began in the Western Latin world in the 12^th century, with the setting up of faculties of theology. It appeared only much later in the Eastern Orthodox world: in the 17^th century in the case of Russia, the 19^th century in Greece and Romania, in the 20^th century in Serbia and Bulgaria. [Until] these periods, in the East, theology and its teaching had never been given the status of ‘institutional academic science.’ The theological training of clergy was provided in bishops’ houses or in monasteries, taking the form primarily of a more perfected catechesis dispensed by Elders, as well as contributions of ecclesial life (in particular liturgical), of monastic life and of personal spiritual life”.^[95]

Academic study alone has never been the criteria for authority in the Church, neither does someone’s ecclesiastical rank in and of itself grant the authority to speak the truth about matters of faith and lead others to spiritual healing and salvation.

Blind obedience to the authorities is cautioned against in the Old Testament, as is following after false prophets. The Prophet Jeremiah writes:

“Woe to the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of their pasture! Therefore thus saith the Lord against them that tend my people: Ye have scattered My sheep, and driven them out, and ye have not visited them… Thus saith the Lord Almighty, Hearken not to the words of the prophets: for they frame a vain vision for themselves; they speak from their own heart, and not from the mouth of the Lord… I sent not the prophets, yet they ran: neither spoke I to them, yet they prophesied.”^[96]

God, speaking through the Prophet Ezekiel, says that:

“I will stretch forth My hand against the prophets that see false visions, and those that utter vanities; they shall not partake of the instruction of My people, neither shall they be written in the roll of the house of Israel. Because they have caused my people to err, saying, Peace; and there is no peace; and one builds a wall, and they plaster it, – it shall fall.”^[97]

It says in the book of Deuteronomy that false guides are allowed by God to test God’s people:

“Every word that I command you this day, it shalt thou observe to do: thou shalt not add to it, nor diminish from it. And if there here arise within thee a prophet, or one who dreams a dream, and he gives thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass which he spoke to thee, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye know not; ye shall not hearken to the words of that prophet, or the dreamer of that dream, because the Lord thy God tries you, to know whether ye love your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall follow the Lord your God, and fear him, and ye shall hear his voice, and attach yourselves to him. And that prophet or that dreamer of a dream, shall die; for he has spoken to make thee err from the Lord thy God”.^[98]

There are also many warnings in the New Testament about false teachers; that they would arise even from within the clergy of the Church. The Apostle Paul warns:

“For I know this, that after my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock, and among your own selves men shall rise up, speaking things which have been perverted”.^[99]

In his epistle to the Galatians, he warns the people to not even listen to him or the other apostles, or an angel, if they depart from Orthodox teaching:

“But even if we, or an angel from out of heaven, preach unto you otherwise than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema.”^[100]

St. Paul was writing this to the entire community at Galatia; he clearly expected all Christians to understand the Faith and to recognize false teachings, even if it were to come from one of the apostles. He makes the same assumption when he writes to the Corinthians:

“I fear, lest in any way, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your thoughts in this manner should be corrupted from the simplicity which is toward the Christ. For if indeed the one who cometh proclaimeth another Jesus whom we did not proclaim, or if ye receive another spirit which ye did not receive, or another gospel which ye did not accept…For such are false apostles, guileful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And a marvelous thing is it not; for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.”^[101]

The Apostle Peter likewise warns:

“But false prophets arose among the people, as also there shall be false teachers among you, who shall introduce privily heresies of destruction, even denying the Master Who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their licentious acts, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed.”^[102]

And the Apostle John the Theologian instructs us in his 1^st general epistle, directed to all Christians, to be continually discerning whether a teaching is of God:

“Beloved, cease believing every spirit, but keep on putting the spirits to the test, if they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”^[103]

The Holy Fathers do not advocate for blind obedience to the bishops and clergy, but rather that this obedience extends insofar as the ecclesiastical authorities themselves are faithful to the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”^[104]

Many today and throughout history have claimed that they are not responsible if they follow an erring bishop into sin or heresy. The Apostolic Constitutions reject such a mentality:

“Hear, O you bishops; and hear, O you of the laity, how God speaks: I will judge between ram and ram, and between sheep and sheep. And He says to the shepherds: You shall be judged for your unskillfulness, and for destroying the sheep. That is, I will judge between one bishop and another, and between one lay person and another, and between one ruler and another (for these sheep and these rams are not irrational, but rational creatures): lest at any time a lay person should say, ‘I am a sheep and not a shepherd, and I am not concerned for myself; let the shepherd look to that, for he alone will be required to give an account for me.’ For as that sheep that will not follow its good shepherd is exposed to the wolves, to its destruction; so that which follows a bad shepherd is also exposed to unavoidable death, since his shepherd will devour him. Wherefore care must be had to avoid destructive shepherds.”^[105]

St. Daniel of Katounakia likewise says that we are not to be irrationally obedient to spiritual authorities:

“I do not mean, my children in the Lord, that you should be blindly and irrationally obedient as some are to those who teach and supposedly assume spiritual authority for the sake (even if only slightly) of their ego and self-interest. No! But be careful, and if you see from us advice and counsels that are not consistent with the pure spirit of paternal discernment and the un-erring prescriptions of the holy Church Fathers, you should not obey.”^[106]

St. Basil the Great says that a bishop is accountable to and subject to judgement by the laity, and that the laity should be able to recognize whether a bishop is holy or is confessing Orthodoxy:

“He who is in charge of preaching the word (that is, whether he is a teacher or a hierarch) must do and say everything with great deliberation and judgment, aiming at pleasing God, inasmuch as he must be tested and borne witness to by the very people who are entrusted to him…

Those who have little knowledge of the Scriptures should be able to recognize those who are holy and saints by the fruits of the Spirit they exhibit. And they should receive the people who display these as saints, but reject those who do not.”^[107]

St. Ignatius of Antioch echoes St. Paul in his expectation that Christians should be able to recognize false teachings and flee from those spreading them, regardless of who they are, and that those who follow false shepherds will perish with them:

“Everyone that teaches anything besides what is commanded, even if he is credible, even if he fasts, even if he lives celibately, even if he works miracles, even if he prophesies, let him be in your sight as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, laboring for the destruction of the sheep.”^[108]

“Do not err, my brethren. Those who corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a one becoming defiled, shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him…Be not anointed with the bad odor of the doctrine of the prince of this world; let him not lead you away captive from the life which is set before you.”^[109]

Regarding the question of following a Bishop who errs in matters of the faith, St. John Chrysostom says:

“Evil? In what sense? If indeed in regard to faith, flee and avoid him; not only if he is a man, but even if he is an angel come down from Heaven… I do not recognize the law of any servant, but only the King’s law… God will not acquit you because of the negligence of your fellow servants, but He will judge you according to the precept of His laws.”^[110]

St. Theodore the Studite teaches that the authority given to bishops and their ability “to bind and loose” has limits, and depends upon them being faithful to Holy Tradition:

“Why do I speak of the canons and imply a distinction? For it is one and the same thing to speak of them and of the Gospel of Christ. He himself said when he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to the great Peter, ‘Whomever you loose and whomever you bind, it will be as you have said.’^[111]And again he said to all the Apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you retain, they are retained.’^[112] And consequently he transmitted the authority to those who came after them, if they should act in the same way.”^[113]

St. Theodore also explains that a group of bishops gathering in council does not ipso facto grant authority in and of itself:

“[The Church of God] has not permitted anything to be done or said against the established decrees and laws, although many shepherds have in many ways railed against them^[114] when they have called great and very numerous councils, and given themselves to put on a show of concern for the canons, while in truth acting against them.

What then is remarkable in the gathering of about fifteen bishops to declare innocent and to absolve for the priesthood one who is deposed on two counts?

Sir, a council does not consist simply in the gathering of bishops and priests, no matter how many there are. For Scripture says that one doing the will of the Lord is better than thousands who transgress^[115]. A council occurs when, in the Lord’s name, the canons are thoroughly searched out and maintained. And a council is not to bind and loose in some random way, but as seems proper to the truth and to the canon and to the rule of strictness.

The Word of God is not such as to allow itself to be bound.^[116] And no authority whatever has been given to bishops for any transgression of a canon. They are simply to follow what has been decreed, and to adhere to those have gone before.”^[117]

St. Symeon the New Theologian instructs us to carefully seek out spiritual guides, to study the writings of the Fathers, and to reject guidance that is not in accord with the Fathers:

“Implore God with prayers and tears to send you a guide who is dispassionate and holy. But you yourself should also study the divine writings – especially the works of the Fathers that deal with the practice of the virtues – so that you can compare the teachings of your master with them; for thus you will see and observe them as in a mirror. Take to heart and keep in mind those of his teachings that agree with the divine writings, but separate out and reject those that are false and incongruent. Otherwise you will be led astray. For in these days there are all too many deceivers and false prophets.”^[118]

St. Meletios the Confessor states that bishops are not to be obeyed when they are leading away from the path of salvation:

“Do not even listen to bishops when they advise you to do and to say and to believe that which harms the soul.”^[119]

We see this manifested in many historical examples from Church history where disobedience to ecclesiastical authorities was the righteous path in the case when those authorities failed to uphold the Orthodox faith. A. Edward Siencienski writes:

“As one begins a study of Christian history, and in particular the patristic period, what becomes immediately apparent is how often figures regarded as “heroes” of the Christian narrative found themselves at odds with both secular and ecclesiastical authority. These heroes and saints were the ones who, to protect the orthodox faith, disobeyed the biblical injunction to “submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men” (1 Peter 2:13). They were the ones who ignored Ignatius of Antioch’s plea to be obedient to the bishop, respecting him ‘as you respect the authority of God the Father.’”^[120]

Siencienski points to the examples of Sts. Maximos the Confessor and Theodore the Studite who both disobeyed their bishops because they believed them to have strayed from the true faith:

“For example, Maximus the Confessor refused during his trial to commune with the hierarchy in Constantinople, believing them to be heretics condemned by the Romans and the Lateran Synod. His accusers then asked him: ‘But what if the Romans should come to terms with the Byzantines, what will you do?’ He answered: ‘The Holy Spirit, through the apostle, condemns even angels who innovate in some way contrary to what is preached.’^[121] Simply put, Maximus knew that in the matter of Christ’s wills he was right and the hierarchy was wrong, and he would rather die ‘than have on my conscience the worry that in some way or other I have suffered a lapse with regard to belief in God.’^[122]

…

For [St.] Theodore [the Studite] disobedience to the hierarchy was sometimes necessary if one was to be obedient to the canon of truth received from the Fathers, “for we have an injunction from the Apostle himself: If anyone preaches a doctrine, or urges you to do something, against what you have received, against what is prescribed by the canons of the catholic and local synods held at various times, he is not to be received, or to be reckoned among the number of the faithful.”^[123] Addressing the charge that he was introducing schism, Theodore was adamant that in so much as he had remained a child of the Church and its canons (unlike the false teachers who now claimed authority) it was not he who was the schismatic.^[124] As with Maximus before him, Theodore knew in this matter he was right and the hierarchy was wrong.”^[125]

Another example is the attempted union between the Orthodox and the Latins at the Council of Ferrara-Florence held between 1431-1439:

“When a second vote was taken on the orthodoxy of the filioque, the entire delegation (except Mark of Ephesus, Anthony of Heraclea, Dositheus of Monemvasia, and Sophronius of Anchialus) embraced the Latin teaching.

When the union was finally proclaimed on July 6^th [1439] amid great pomp and pageantry, the one notable absence from the proceedings was Mark of Ephesus, who had refused to sign. In an interview with Pope Eugene shortly afterward he explained his justification for denying obedience to, what was now considered by all parties to be, an ecumenical gathering:

‘The councils sentenced those who would not obey the Church and kept opinions contrary to her doctrine. I express not my own opinions, I introduce nothing new into the Church, neither do I defend any errors. But I steadfastly preserve the doctrine which the Church, having received from Christ the Savior, has ever kept and keeps.’^[126]”^[127]

Sts. Maximos the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, and Mark of Ephesus are all remembered as great saints, heroes, and champions of the faith. If authority in the Orthodox Church were solely based on ecclesiastical rank, then the Church would remember these men as rebels and troublemakers rather than heroes.

Fr. Georges Florovsky writes concerning the authority of bishops:

“A bishop of the Church, episcopus in ecclesia, must be a teacher. Only the bishop has received full power and authority to speak in the name of his flock… But to do so the bishop must embrace his Church within himself; he must made manifest its experience and its faith. He must speak not from himself, but in the name of the Church, ex consensu ecclesiae…

“It is not from his flock that the bishop receives full power to teach, but from Christ through the Apostolic Succession. But full power has been given to him to bear witness to the catholic experience of the body of the Church. He is limited by this experience, and therefore in questions of faith the people must judge concerning his teaching. The duty of obedience ceases when the bishop deviates from the catholic norm, and the people have the right to accuse and even to depose him.”^[128]

The role of the priest and bishop is not primarily to serve as an organizational administrator exercising some kind of military-like authority; their primary role is to lead man from the sickness of sin to purification, illumination, and theosis. St. Dionysios the Areopagite, in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, identifies the orders of deacon, priest, and bishop with the three stages of the spiritual life: purification, illumination, and theosis.

“[The] order of hierarchs has the task of consecration and of perfection, that the illuminative order of priests brings light and that the task of the deacon is to purify and to discern the imperfect.”^[129]

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpatkos further explains this teaching of St. Dionysios:

“As we study the teachings of St. Dionysios, we come to see that each of the three degrees of the priesthood corresponds to a stage of the spiritual life. Since the task of the deacon is to purify others of passions, he should himself, prior to ordination, have reached a stage of purification so that he is himself a living exponent of the practical philosophy. Since according to patristic teachings it is the priest’s task to illuminate others, his ordination presupposes that he has an illuminated nous, which, as we have seen, is a degree of theoria. Thus the priest must remember God unceasingly in prayer, must know spiritual work, be fluent in Holy Scripture and be able to contemplate the inner principles of all created things. As for the bishop, since his primary task is to perfect the people by the inner principles of theology, he must experience the mystical theology, live in communion with God. This close relationship with God makes him a prophet, a divine initiate capable of mystically imparting the word of truth to the people of God.

The form which the ordination of deacons, priests and bishops takes is equally indicative of the spiritual condition which they are assumed to have reached in order to fulfill these essential tasks. For how can people be helped if the helpers have no personal experience of the task which they are to carry out?…

Therefore according to St. Dionysios, who expresses the tradition of the Church, the bishop is the supreme scientist of the spiritual life. He is the one who sees God and has personal experience of deification… The bishop is a fruit of deification, and, having himself been deified, by grace he helps his fellow Christian along his own journey towards deification.”^[130]

In other words, the bishops and priests are supposed to be spiritual fathers. Archbishop Basil Krivocheine (who was a disciple of St. Sophrony of Essex) states that “[St.] Symeon [the New Theologian] repeatedly emphasized that anyone who wants to lead a Christian life and be saved needs a spiritual father.”^[131] There are some in our day who would make the claim that it is only monks who need to have spiritual fathers; this is false. St. Symeon teaches that every sinner is in need of “a mediator and helper, unable as he is to advance on his own, on account of the numerous sins which dishonor and burden him”^[132] and that “without a father or a spiritual mentor, it is not possible for a man to keep the commandments of God, to live rightly and without reproach, and to avoid the snares of the devil.”^[133]

It is only those who have already reached perfection, who have attained to the vision of Christ, who are not in need of a spiritual father.^[134] St. Symeon urges all Christians to “search for such men, true disciples of Christ. With effort, with contrition and effusion of tears let us implore God all our life to open the eyes of our heart to recognize such a person”.^[135] He also explains that such people will be revealed to those in every generation who seek them, that “both then [in ancient times] and now, God makes known the Apostles and prophets and the just to those who have zeal and take care of themselves”.^[136]

Archbishop Basil summarizes St. Symeon’s teachings on spiritual fatherhood:

“By way of summary, we must say that for Symeon the spiritual father is a charismatic being, the living imago Christi; he is himself Christ. To obey him is to imitate the earthly life of Christ and to live the great events of the Gospel: the Transfiguration, the Passion, the Death and Resurrection. It means going beyond the earthly life of Christ to Pentecost, which is repeated inwardly in every true Christian with a power undiminished since the day of the Apostles. It is the Holy Spirit who sends the spiritual father as the result of our searching and fervent prayer. The spiritual father begets us into spiritual life, and without him we are not even born unto eternal life. He leads and unites us to Christ. In his choice as well as in our fidelity to him, human freedom and our unconditional response to the call of God meet.”^[137]

Unfortunately, in the history of the Church there have not always been candidates for the priesthood and episcopacy that had spiritual preparation that aligned with their intended position of spiritual fatherhood in the Church. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos explains:

“To be sure, in all the history of the Church things have not been so ‘rosy’. There have been situations when this truth was lost, and then the people were in the darkness of ignorance. They did not know that there was such a thing as spiritual healing or how healing took place, because there were not men to teach the way of healing.”^[138]

It is holiness that is the criteria for “rightly dividing the word of truth”^[139], and not mere ecclesiastical rank. Many of the great heretics of history have been bishops^[140] and priests^[141]. There have been, and still are to this day, bishops who are holy. This is obvious by the fact that many saints were bishops. It is, however, not simply their rank that grants them the ability to speak authoritatively about theological matters, but rather whether they possess the experience of God. Fr. George Metallinos explains that authority is derived from one’s experience of God:

“[Orthodoxy] is expressed with the ascetic-experienced participation in the Truth as communion with the Uncreated… The believer, moving within the territory of the supernatural, or knowledge of the Uncreated, is not called to learn something metaphysically or to accept something logically, but to experience God by being in communion with Him. This is accomplished by introducing him to a way of life or method that leads to divine knowledge.

It has been correctly stated that if Christianity were to appear for the first time in our era, it would take the form of a therapeutic institution, a hospital to reinstate and restore the function of man as a psychosomatic being. That is why Saint John Chrysostom calls the Church a ‘spiritual hospital.’ Supernatural-theological knowledge is understood in Orthodoxy as pathos (experience of life), as participation and communion with the transcendent, and not as an unreachable personal truth of the Uncreated—and certainly not as a mere exercise in learning. Thus, Christian faith is not an abstract contemplative adoption of metaphysical truth, but rather, an experience of seeing True Being: the experience of the Supersubstantial (superessential) Trinity.

This statement clearly expresses that in Orthodoxy, authority is experience: the experience of participating in the Uncreated, as seeing the Uncreated (as expressed by the terms Theosis and glorification), and is not based on texts or on the Scriptures. The tradition of the Church is preserved not in texts but in persons. Texts help, but they are not the bearers of the Holy Tradition. Tradition is preserved through the Saints; human beings are the bearers of the Gospel.”^[142]

St. Symeon the New Theologian likewise describes the person who bears authority:

“A person who has consciously accepted within himself the God who gives knowledge…no longer needs to read books, having harvested all of the fruits from his reading…Whoever converses with the One who inspired the divine writings, and has been initiated by Him into the secrets of the hidden mysteries, becomes for others a book inspired by God. He bears within himself the old and new mysteries engraved there by the finger of God. He rests from all his labors, finding his repose in God, who is the highest perfection.”^[143]

Similarly, with regard to ecclesiastical and spiritual authority, St. Sophrony of Essex says:

“If the priest, together with priestly grace (priesthood) does not also have kingly authority (the activation and development of the grace of Baptism), that is to say, purification from the passions and resurrection from sin, then his priestly work will yield nothing.”^[144]

It was in fact prophesied by St. Pambo of Egypt that there would come a time when the spiritual life of the clergy would be in an abysmal state:

“The clergy will be thrown into anarchy, and the monks will be inclined more to negligence. Church leaders will consider useless anything concerned with the salvation of souls, as much for their own souls as for the souls of their flocks; indeed, they will despise any such concern…As for the lives and teachings of the holy fathers, they will not have any interest to hear them, much less to emulate them. But rather they will complain and say that ‘if we had lived in those times, then we would have conducted ourselves similarly.’ And the bishops will give way to the powerful of the world, giving answers on different matters only after taking gifts from everywhere and consulting the rational logic of the academics.”^[145]

It should be emphasized that St. Pambo is describing Orthodox clergy, that is, those who despite their utter spiritual unworthiness nevertheless remain in their clerical position within the Church. We should not misunderstand everything we have seen above to mean that a break with the ecclesiastical structure of the Church is warranted simply due to the spiritual state of many of its bishops and priests.

This spiritual decline of the clergy was in fact something that St. Symeon the New Theologian observed in his own life, over a millennium ago, and wrote at great length about. He explains how spiritual authority passed to the monks who had attained holiness after the general spiritual state of the clergy had greatly fallen from the Apostolic standard:

“The possibility of making confession to a monk who has not received the order of priesthood, ever since the vesture and clothing which is the mark of repentance was given by God to his inheritance and they were called ‘monks’, this you will find to have been open to everybody, as is written in the divinely inspired writings of the fathers. If you study them you will find that what I am saying is true. Before there were monks, bishops alone used to receive the authority to bind and loose, by right of succession, as coming from the divine apostles. But with the passing of time and with the bishops becoming good for nothing, this awe-inspiring function was extended to priests of blameless life and accounted worthy of divine grace. And when these also were infected with disorder, priests and bishops together becoming like the rest of the people, and many of them, as is also the case now, falling foul of spirit of deceit and idle chatter, and perishing, then this function was transferred, as I said, to the elect people of Christ, I mean the monks. It was not withdrawn from the priests or bishops, but they deprived themselves of it.

Confession to a monk who does not have holy orders, you will find, was practiced everywhere ever since monks existed and the garment of repentance and the monastic life were given by God…Prior to this, as successors to the holy Apostles, only bishops received the power to bind and loose. But as time passed, the bishops became corrupt, and this fearful undertaking passed on to priests who had a blameless life and were worthy of grace. And later, the priests, as well as the bishops, associated with and became just like the rest of the people. And many of them, just as now, would fall into spirits of delusion and vain, empty speech and would be lost. Then the power to bind and loose was transferred to the chosen people of God, that is to say, to the monks. It was not that it was removed from the priests and bishops, but that the priests and bishops estranged themselves from this grace.

…

And because those who sat on the thrones of the Apostles themselves to be carnal, lovers of pleasure and lovers of honor, and they inclined towards heresies, divine grace abandoned men such as these and the power was removed from them.

And this is why all of the qualities the performers of sacerdotal service ought to possess are put aside, and the only thing asked of those who are to be ordained is that they be Orthodox. However, I fear that in reality they do not even ask that. For one is not Orthodox merely because he brings no new doctrine into the church of God, but because he has a life that is consistent with the correct teaching. [The] patriarchs and metropolitans at various times sought after this kind of candidate either unsuccessfully, or they succeeded but preferred the unworthy over him. And they required of the unworthy only a signed statement of the Symbol of Faith, and asked of him only this: that he neither be a zealot for the good, nor that he fight against something that is bad. Supposedly, they were attending to the peace of the Church in this way, but this way is worse than any hatred and is the cause of great disorder. And by this cause, the priests were corrupted and became as the people. For among them there were none who were the salt which the Lord spoke of, and who, by use of reproaches, could bind and check the flowing away of life. On the contrary, they agreed and covered up evil and passions for one another, and became worse than the people. And the people, in turn, became worse than them. In fact some of the people were shown to be better than the priests, because, amidst the total darkness of the priests, they appeared as a lighted coal. For, according to the words of the Lord, if in their lives the priests did ‘shine forth like the sun’^[146] the coals would not have been seen to glow and would have appeared darkened in contrast to the more powerful light. But because among the people there remained only the form and external appearance of the priesthood, the gift of the Holy Spirit was transferred to the monks. And it was recognized by signs showing that the monks, by their works, were living the life of the Apostles. There too, then, the devil again performed his work. Seeing that the monks appeared in the world like some new disciples of Christ and shone forth by their life and miracles, he brought into their midst and mixed among them false brothers who were his own vessels. And slowly they increased, as you see, and the monks were corrupted and became monks who were completely unmonastic.

Therefore, the power to remit sins is given by God neither to those who have the monastic schema nor to those who are ordained to the ranks of priesthood, nor to those honored by the office of episcopacy, I mean to patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops. merely because of their ordination and its office. … But the power of remitting sins is given only to those from among the priests and bishops and monks who belong to the rank of the disciples of Christ because of purity.

How, then, will they, whom we spoke of, know if they are among these disciples, and how will others who seek after them accurately recognize them? For this purpose, the Lord taught us saying, ‘And these signs shall follow them that believe: In My name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak in new tongues,’ which refers to the divine and beneficial teaching of the Word; ‘they shall pull up snakes; and if they drink any deadly things, it will not hurt them’^[147]. And also, ‘My sheep hear My voice’^[148], and ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’^[149]. By which fruits? Paul enumerates the many fruits and says, ‘But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance’^[150], and accompanying these are ‘compassion, brotherly love, charity’, and the consequences of these. And with them are ‘the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, the gift of healing’, and many others. ‘But all these worketh that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man as he wills’^[151]. So those who have become participants in these gifts — either completely or in part according to what is profitable to them — are counted among the host of Apostles. Also counted among them are those who today become like them. And this is why they are the light of the world, as Christ Himself says: ‘No man who lights a candle places it under a table or under a bed, but places it in a candlestick so it will give light to all that are in the house.’^[152] They are known not only by this but by the conduct of their lives.

If a man finds that he has achieved every virtue that is heard about in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and he has performed every good work and knows the degree of his advancement and change regarding each one of them, and he is ascending to the heights of divine glory, then let him know himself as a participant of God and in His gifts; and those who see clearly and even those with dimmest vision will recognize him.

…

This is what it means for one to find his life: to see God, and in that Light to become higher than all of the visible Creation, and to have God as his shepherd and teacher, from whom, if he wishes, he will learn to bind and to loose. And having learnt it accurately, he will worship Him who gave it, and he will pass it to all who have a need of it.

…

I know that to such men, my son, the power to bind and loose is given by God the Father from our Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, that is to those, who are his adopted sons and holy servants. And I was a disciple of such a father who did not have the ordination by men, but he made me a disciple by the hand of God, that is by the Holy Spirit. And he ordered me to receive the ordination of men, for it would be well to observe the customary form since, from my early days, the Holy Spirit was moving me toward it with great desire.”^[153]

Authority in the Orthodox Church comes from God and resides in those who have come to know God experientially, having first been purified of the passions and having become dwelling places of the Holy Spirit. Bishops are to be selected from among those who are holy, who are purified, and who are capable of healing others spiritually, of leading the faithful to purification, illumination, and theosis. A bishop or priest who is not a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit still serves true Mysteries but they are unable to lead people to healing and unable to impart to others a dogmatic consciousness that they themselves have not acquired. This is the deeper meaning of “binding and loosing” that St. Symeon is speaking of.

It is of utmost importance (in fact, it is perhaps the most important thing in the entire life of an Orthodox Christian) to seek out the people in one’s own day who have inherited this authority from God. St. Symeon states that those who neglect this will be without any excuse and will be as those who reject Christ Himself:

“Lest through your rejection of us you should be counted as one who rejects and sets Christ at nought… Remember too our Lord and God who daily proclaims: He who receives you, receives me, and he who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me^[154]…do not presume to say within yourself that these things were said to the apostles only, and it is only they to whom we are bound to listen. But listen to what the Savior again declares to them: What I say to you, I say to all ^[155]…Tell me, then: of all these whom the Holy Spirit established for us – I mean leaders, pastors, bishops, and teachers – these, who bring with them the teachings and traditions of the holy apostles and convey them to us as an inheritance from our fathers, if someone was bold enough to scorn one of them, or slight him or not receive him into his house or set at nought what is said by him and reject it…would he not have driven away that great man Paul himself, and Peter, and in short the whole company of the apostles? And has not one who has driven them away rejected our Lord and God himself and his Father?

For this reason, therefore, we have need of much earnestness, much keeping of vigils, and of many prayers, so that we do not fall in with a deceiver, a cheat, a false brother and false Christ, but meet a teacher who is genuine, and who loves God and bears Christ within himself – a man with accurate knowledge and understanding of the apostles’ preaching, of their Canons and Commandments, of the doctrines of the fathers, and above all of the will and the mysteries of the Master himself, who is also the apostles’ teacher. It is, then, a teacher like this that we must search for and find—a man who has first listened and been taught these things in words, and then by his actions and experience has in truth been mystically and mysteriously initiated by the Spirit, the Paraclete himself, so that he too has been made worthy to hear said by that very One who mysteriously initiated the apostles: ‘My mystery is for me and for mine’, and ‘To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven’^[156].”^[157]

“It is to them who are in earnest, who are attentive as regards themselves, who put forward what comes from them, who seek after God, and who practice virtue – it is to them that God has, both then and also now, revealed his apostles and prophets, his righteous and holy ones…[Those who do not seek out such holy ones are] covered by the darkness of their own passions, and desires, and wishes, and walking therein as in the depths of the night, they find teachers of their own kind…[However], a man who is spiritual and holy and a genuine teacher…it was to men of this kind that our Savior and God said, He who receives you, receives me, and he who rejects you rejects me^[158]…And let no one advance ignorance as his excuse and say: ‘How shall I be able to know who are men of this kind? After all, I am a man, and no one knows the things that constitute a man, except the spirit which dwells within him.’ Nobody will accept this as a reasonable excuse, for were it not possible, the Lord would not have said: Beware of false prophets – false teachers, obviously – who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves^[159], and he adds: By their fruits you will recognize them^[160]…for those who have discernment the sons of God and the sons of the Devil prove to be easily known and visible – both they, and also the fruits of the all-holy and good Spirit.”^[161]

St. Sophrony of Essex wrote concerning his experience with Athonite ascetics and the dogmatic consciousness acquired by his staretz, St. Silouan the Athonite:

“The history of the Church together with personal contact with many ascetics has led me to the conclusion that the experience of grace in those who have been granted visitations and visions is only assimilated deeply after years of ascetic endeavor; grace then taking the form of spiritual knowledge that I should prefer to define as ‘dogmatic consciousness’ (but not in the academic sense of the term) …

More than thirty years elapsed before the Staretz set down in writing, with final and mature dogmatic consciousness, his own experience. The assimilation of grace is a lengthy process.

The dogmatic consciousness I have here in mind is the fruit of spiritual experience, independent of the logical brain’s activity. The writings in which the Saints reported their experience were not cast in the form of scholastic dissertations. They were revelations of the soul…

Dogmatic knowledge, understood as spiritual knowledge, is a gift of God, like all forms of real life in God, granted by God, and only possible through His coming.”^[162]

We see the same understanding in the teachings of Fr. John Romanides regarding the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and of councils of bishops in general:

“[The] decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible. During the Ecumenical Councils the Fathers were divinely inspired and made divinely inspired decisions about the dogmas of the Church…In those days the tradition still existed that bishops, at least, ought to be chosen from among those who have reached glorification…

[The Local and Ecumenical Councils were made up] of bishops who knew the therapeutic method of the Church. The Council was convened with the aim of preserving, not simply the dogma and the order of worship of the Church, as happens today, but also the therapeutic method of the Church. A true bishop is an expert on the therapeutic method of the Church…

Today, however, when noetic prayer is rare among bishops, if a Council of bishops meets and they stand up at the beginning to sing together, ‘Heavenly King and Comforter, Spirit of truth, everywhere present and filling all things…’, will the Holy Spirit come without fail and enlighten them? Simply because they are canonical bishops and assemble at a Council and pray?

However, the Holy Spirit does not act in that way, with only these preconditions. Other conditions need to be met. The one who prays must have noetic prayer already activated within him when he comes to the Council, in order for the grace of God to enlighten him. Those who attended the pseudo-Councils were not in this state of prayer.

The bishops of old, however, had this sort of spiritual experience and when they came together as a body, they knew what the Holy Spirit was assuring them of within their hearts on a specific subject. And when they reached decisions, they knew that their decisions were correct. Because they were in the state of illumination, and some of them had even reached glorification, theosis.”^[163]

Fr. John echoes the patristic teaching that authority in the Church does not come from academic accomplishments or even by ordination to the ranks of the clergy but from the direct experiential knowledge of God which results from the purification of the heart and noetic prayer. The Ecumenical Councils are authoritative not primarily because they had a certain number of bishops, or a certain number of educated bishops with a gift for explaining difficult concepts. Rather, they have been received as authoritative by the Church because the Councils followed the Holy Fathers among them who spoke with authority because they had become vessels of the Holy Spirit through ascetical struggle and noetic prayer.

2.) The Knowledge of God in Patristic Theology

2.) i.) The Types of Knowledge

“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things which are made, both His eternal power and divinity, so that they are without excuse.”^[164]

There has been a trend in recent years in the realm of online Orthodox theological apologetics that understands this verse in a way that erroneously incorporates aspects of the metaphysics of Platonism, asserting that there are uncreated forms and patterns which created things derive their being from. It is thought that through the use of analogy, man can arrive at some level of conceptual knowledge of God; that conceptual analogies can be drawn between God and creation. The doctrine of the logoi, the divine names, the relationship of man to God’s uncreated energies, and the purpose of dogma are all misunderstood within a perspective that approaches Orthodox dogmatics as one would approach any other philosophical or religious system. This has resulted in a myriad of erroneous viewpoints, such as the claim that “the logoi [are] the uncreated divine ideas that are archetypes and patterns of creation”.^[165]This is not the patristic teaching of the logoi, rather, it is more in line with Platonism. We shall examine the logoi, ideas, forms, archetypes, and universals in more detail later on. Firstly, it is necessary to clarify the patristic teaching on the different types of knowledge, as these misunderstandings at their root come from a distorted vision of what the different types of knowledge are and the roles that each type plays in both theology and in our lives.

2.) i.) a.) Distinct Types of Knowledge in Romanides and the Church Fathers

In the writings of the Church Fathers there is an experiential, noetic knowledge that is something distinct from and higher than knowledge on the purely rational-intellectual level. This distinction is seen throughout the Church Fathers. The word “noetic” comes from the Greek word “nous”, which is often rendered in English translations as “mind”, however this is misleading. The nous or noetic facility is not the same thing as the reason or rational faculty, which is referred to as ‘logiki’ in Greek. The nous is the eye of the soul or the energy of the soul,^[166] and knowledge that is acquired by the nous is often referred to as “theoria”.

In the glossary of My Elder Joseph the Hesychast, theoria is defined as follows:

“Theoria is the ‘vision of the spirit’ or ‘a non-sensible revelation of the nous’ (St. Isaac the Syrian) through which one attains spiritual knowledge. That is, through theoria, the Holy Spirit grants one understanding of the mysteries of God and creation which are hidden to the rational human intellect. Knowledge stemming from theoria is revelation from above. Theoria is not intellectual work, but an operation of the Holy Spirit which opens the eyes of the soul to behold mysteries. The Church Fathers often contrast it with praxis which is an indispensable prerequisite of theoria. In the first stage of theoria, the prayer is said without distraction and with a sense of the presence of God with love, peace, and mourning, etc. In the next stage, the nous proceeds to feel what Adam felt in Paradise before the Fall, and it sees spiritually how all nature glorifies God. Furthermore, it sees His omnipotence, omniscience, and providence therein. St. Maximos the Confessor calls this perception of the inner essences of created beings.^[167] In the final state of theoria, one beholds God Himself in uncreated light.^[168]”^[169]

Fr. John Romanides explains how the knowledge of God, which is in the category of experiential-noetic knowledge, is beyond all created words/concepts. Man’s reason, his rational-intellectual faculty, participates in this experience and can try to articulate something about it, but the glory of God itself is completely beyond the level of the rational:

“In the experience of glorification, the manifestation of God, man’s reason is inspired and translates the experience into language.”^[170]

“This knowledge that the saints have of God includes man’s faculty of reason, because man’s reason and his body remain observers of this experience. He does not lose his senses; they participate in the experience of the divine vision. On the other hand, the experience of divine vision itself surpasses the senses and the power of reason, so the knowledge of God is beyond reason.”^[171]

“In the experience of glorificationGod goes beyond concepts and in this experience meaning is surmounted. There are no concepts in this experience… Revelation goes beyond every concept and meaning, and is above words and understanding, because there is no similarity at all between God and the creation. Reason participates in the experience of revelation, but the actual glory of God transcends reason, which was created to understand created, not uncreated things… This experience, however, creates a divinely inspired state within man, as he has reached the vision of God and the concepts that he has acquired from this experience are divinely inspired, even though the experience is beyond any concept.”^[172]

St. Basil the Great relates the Scriptural use of “know” in the context of the marital union to the knowledge of God that is acquired through communion with the divine energies. Both kinds of “knowing” are experiential and participatory rather than a mere rational knowledge about one another:

“‘Adam knew his wife.’^[173] Did he know her essence? It is said of Rebekah ‘She was a virgin, neither had any man known her,’^[174] and ‘How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’^[175] Did no man know Rebekah’s essence? Does Mary mean ‘I do not know the essence of any man?’ Is it not the custom of Scripture to use the word ‘know’ of nuptial embraces? The statement that God shall be known from the mercy seat means that He will be known to His worshippers. And the Lord knoweth them that are His, means that on account of their good works He receives them into intimate communion with Him.”^[176]

St. John of Damascus says that God is not entirely knowable, that not all concerning God can be put into words, and that those things about God conveyed in words are expressed according to man’s limited capacity to translate this experiential knowledge of God into mere human words:

“Now, one who would speak or hear about God should know beyond any doubt that in what concerns theology and the Dispensation^[177] not all things are inexpressible and not all are capable of expression, and neither are all things unknowable nor are they all knowable. That which can be known is one thing, whereas that which can be said is another, just as it is one thing to speak and another to know. Furthermore, many of those things about God which are not clearly perceived cannot be fittingly described, so that we are obliged to express in human terms things which transcend the human order.”^[178]

St. Gregory the Theologian says that to know God requires the abandonment of conceptual knowledge in prayer and that expressing God in words is an impossibility:

“What is this that has happened to me, O friends, and initiates, and fellow-lovers of the truth? I was running to lay hold on God, and thus I went up into the Mount, and drew aside the curtain of the Cloud, and entered away from matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself. And then when I looked up, I scarce saw the back parts of God; although I was sheltered by the Rock, the Word that was made flesh for us… In this way then shalt thou discourse of God; even wert thou a Moses and a god to Pharaoh; even wert thou caught up like Paul to the Third Heaven, and hadst heard unspeakable words; even wert thou raised above them both, and exalted to Angelic or Archangelic place and dignity… It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words is an impossibility, as one of the Greek teachers of Divinity taught [i.e. Plato], not unskillfully, as it appears to me; with the intention that he might be thought to have apprehended Him; in that he says it is a hard thing to do; and yet may escape being convicted of ignorance because of the impossibility of giving expression to the apprehension. But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him.”^[179]

St. Athanasios the Great likewise explains that the knowledge of God in prayer requires transcending the things of this world, both in form and concept:

“For having nothing to hinder his knowledge of the Deity, he ever beholds, by his purity, the Image of the Father, God the Word, after Whose image he himself is made. He is awe-struck as he contemplates that Providence [πρόνοιαν (prónoian)] which through the Word extends to the universe, being raised above the things of sense and every bodily appearance, but cleaving to the divine and thought-perceived [noetically-perceived] things in the heavens by the power of his [nous]. For when the [nous] of men does not hold converse with bodies, nor has mingled with it from without aught of their lust, but is wholly above them, dwelling with itself as it was made to begin with, then, transcending the things of sense and all things human, it is raised up on high; and seeing the Word, it sees in Him also the Father of the Word, taking pleasure in contemplating Him, and gaining renewal by its desire toward Him”.^[180]

St. Maximos the Confessor says that true knowledge of God is not conceptual but is the fruit of prayer and asceticism, and that one can have knowledge about God from what is written while being deprived of spiritual knowledge of God from experience:

“Let us, then, implore the intelligible David to strike the harp of spiritual contemplation and knowledge, and make it resound in our [nous], which [is] convulsed by material things, and expel the wicked spirit that diverts our senses toward material things, so that we might be able to understand the law spiritually, and find the mystical meaning buried within it, and make it our abiding possession and provision on our journey to eternal life. Otherwise, we will have but a symbolic law, loaned to us, as it were, in written letters, and thus be deprived of the spiritual knowledge given by grace, and, like those who cannot see, we will be content with mere questions about divine realities, but all the while deprived of the true, direct, and brilliantly luminous vision of the mystical words of Scripture… Such a person has taken out a loan at interest, namely, the experience of the sensible symbols of the law. His soul, however, suffers a famine of the spirit, and is blind with respect to the question that might have guided him to true knowledge. This speaks to the need to acquire divine energy by engaging in prayer and asceticism.”^[181]

St. Gregory the Theologian speaks of the various levels in the spiritual life being prerequisites for the attainment of various levels of knowledge of God, and that the study of theology is in fact harmful to the unrepentant:

“Now when I go up eagerly into the Mount— or, to use a truer expression, when I both eagerly long, and at the same time am afraid (the one through my hope and the other through my weakness) to enter within the Cloud, and hold converse with God, for so God commands; if any be an Aaron, let him go up with me, and let him stand near, being ready, if it must be so, to remain outside the Cloud. But if any be a Nadad or an Abihu, or of the Order of the Elders, let him go up indeed, but let him stand afar off, according to the value of his purification. But if any be of the multitude, who are unworthy of this height of theoria, if he be altogether impure let him not approach at all, for it would be dangerous to him; but if he be at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen to the Voice alone, and the trumpet, the bare words of piety, and let him see the Mountain smoking and lightening, a terror at once and a marvel to those who cannot get up. But if any is an evil and savage beast, and altogether incapable of taking in the subject matter of Theoria and Theology, let him not hurtfully and malignantly lurk in his den among the woods, to catch hold of some dogma or saying by a sudden spring, and to tear sound doctrine to pieces by his misrepresentations, but let him stand yet afar off and withdraw from the Mount, or he shall be stoned and crushed, and shall perish miserably in his wickedness. For to those who are like wild beasts true and sound discourses are stones.”^[182]

St. Symeon the New Theologian says that those who have not been purified of the passions should not be meddling with theology, because those who aren’t purified do not have true knowledge of God and are therefore ignorant of divine things. He also says we should flee from those who speak of divine things who do not have the spiritual signs of having been purified and having attained experiential knowledge of God:

“Man was made in the image of God and deemed worthy of angelic and immortal life, but if he was rightly deprived of that angelic state as well as of eternal life and condemned to death, corruption, and the curse, all because he transgressed that one commandment of God, then what will happen to those of [Adam’s] race who meddle in theology while they still bear the image of dust and have never been purified? You are trying to meddle in the teachings about God and divine things, but you have never been taught yourself. Tell me, have you first come up from hell to appear on earth? How did you manage this? Through what steps and stages did you make the ascent? Who helped you, and what manner of creature were they? You came to the surface stinking and rotten with corruption, no more than a corpse in the thrall of death. How did you lay hold on life again, overcome death, and succeed in escaping from his hands? Tell us about these things and then, no doubt, you will tell us how you managed to be delivered from your corruption and freed from the curse after you came up from hell and arrived on earth. After all this, you can show us how you were lifted up from the earth. What kind of ladder did you use? What kind of wings did you have to fly up to the highest heavens? And in what kind of flesh did you rise up bodily so that you could rise again outside that body even higher? What cloud lifted you up? Show us all these things and teach us on these matters, and then we will recognize that you speak of God legitimately, with fear and trembling. But if a man rashly tried to preach without having manifested those spiritual signs which are always realized mystically in those who have reached the state of the completed man in the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, or without having fulfilled the commandments of God, then I would run from him as if he were a madman, a demoniac out of his mind.”^[183]

2.) i.) b.) Saint Isaac the Syrian and the Three Types of Knowledge

The 52^nd homily of St. Isaac the Syrian is a central patristic text that lays out in great detail the Orthodox teaching on the different types of knowledge. St. Isaac shows a tension between knowledge and faith and teaches that faith is “opposed” to the other, lower kinds of knowledge. Rational knowledge itself does not lead to God, but rather leads one to take the step of faith, which then “perfects” knowledge; while God remains “incomprehensible.” Rational knowledge is to serve in fulfilling the commandments of God, i.e., through asceticism and self-denial, but conceptual knowledge about God and the practice of the virtues are still only stepping stones that lead to experiential knowledge of God:

“Knowledge keeps within the boundaries of nature in all its paths; but faith makes its journey above nature… Knowledge is not so bold as to attempt anything that has not been given to nature… [faith] is above nature and opposed to the ways and means of knowledge… Knowledge is perfected by faith and acquires the power to ascend on high, to perceive that which is higher than every perception, and to see the radiance of Him that is incomprehensible to the mind… Knowledge is a step whereby a man can climb up to the lofty height of faith…

These are the works of righteousness: fasting, alms, vigil, holiness, and the rest of such works performed with the body. Love for one’s neighbor, humility of heart, forgiving those who have sinned, recollection of good things… and the rest of the virtues… all these require knowledge, for knowledge guards them and teaches their order. All these are known as virtues, but they are still only steps by which the soul ascends to the more lofty height of faith”.^[184]

St. Isaac then goes on to explain the three types of knowledge:

“We say that there are also three intelligible degrees in which knowledge ascends and descends… There are three degrees: body, soul, and spirit… Knowledge is a gift bestowed by God on the nature of rational beings at their very creation. It is naturally simple and undivided, even as the light of the sun; but according to its activity, knowledge undergoes changes and divisions.

[On the first degree of knowledge]: When knowledge cleaves to the love of the body, it gathers up the following provisions: wealth; vainglory; honor; adornment; rest of the body; special means to guard the body’s nature from adversities; assiduity in rational wisdom, such as is suitable for the governance of the world and which gushes forth the novelties of inventions, the arts, sciences, doctrines, and all other things which crown the body in this visible world… By humility, true knowledge makes perfect the soul of those who have acquired it, like Moses, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the saints who have been accounted worthy of this perfect knowledge to the degree possible for human nature. And by diverse theorias and divine revelations, by the lofty vision of spiritual things and by ineffable mysteries and the like, their knowledge is swallowed up at all times… as many as reflect upon the waves^[185] of the glorious splendor of the Godhead, and whose labor is on high, their minds do not turn aside with inventions and vain thoughts.

[On the second degree of knowledge]: [through the practice of the virtues and the action of the Holy Spirit] this knowledge makes straight the pathways in the heart which lead to faith… but even so, this knowledge is still corporeal and composite; and although it is the road that leads us and speeds us on our way toward faith, yet there remains a degree of knowledge still higher than it… the second degree of knowledge is made perfect [through the performance of good works (i.e. fasting, alms, prayer, mercy, battle with the passions etc.)]… indeed, it is called the knowledge of actions, because by concrete actions, through the senses of the body, it accomplishes its work on the external level.

[On the third degree of knowledge]: Hear now how knowledge becomes more refined, acquires that which is of the Spirit… is raised above earthly things… then faith itself swallows up knowledge, converts it, begets it anew, so that it becomes wholly and completely spirit… now it has received, as it were in a mystery, the noetic resurrection as a true witness of the universal renewal of all things… All the saints who have been found worthy to attain to this spiritual discipline (which is awestruck wonder at God), pass their lives by the power of faith in the delight of that discipline which is above nature. By faith, we mean not that wherewith a man believes in the distinctions of the Divine and worshipful Hypostases, in the singular and unique nature of the very Godhead, and in the wondrous dispensation to mankind through the assumption of our nature, although this faith is also very lofty. But we call faith that light which dawns in the soul by grace… This faith manifests itself not by the tradition of the hearing of the ear, but with spiritual eyes it beholds the mysteries concealed in the soul, and the secret and divine riches that are hidden away from the eyes of the sons of the flesh, but are unveiled by the Spirit to those who are brought up at Christ’s table in the study of His laws. Thus He said, ‘If ye keep My commandments, I will send you the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, Whom the world cannot receive, and He shall teach you all truth’… The luminous and noetic mind invisibly perceives this holy power with the eyes of faith, and the saints gain greater knowledge of it through experience.”^[186]

According to St. Isaac, the three degrees of knowledge lead a man through the purification of his soul to experience the loftiness of faith which transcends conceptual knowledge about God that can be put into words. True knowledge of God, according to St. Isaac, is not a rational understanding of analogous archetypes by which we know the Good or One God conceptually, as in Platonism. Rather, St. Isaac teaches us that the degrees of knowledge comprise a process of purification of the soul as it ascends towards greater levels of participation in the experience of the light of Christ. St. Justin Popovich (one of the most important contemporary Holy Fathers of the 20^th century) confirms this interpretation in his analysis of St. Isaac’s 52^nd homily:

“The God-man reveals the truth in and through Himself. He reveals it, not through thought or reason, but by the life that is His.”^[187]

“The character of a man’s knowledge depends on the disposition, nature, and condition of his organs of understanding… Understanding is then a fruit on the tree of the human person. As is the tree, so are its fruits, as are the organs of understanding, so is the knowledge they engender…. A feeble soul, a diseased intellect, a weakened heart and will – in brief sick organs of understanding – can only engender, fashion, and produce sick thoughts, sick feelings, sick desires, and sick knowledge.”^[188]

“Within the infinite reality of faith, the intellect abases itself before the ineffable mysteries of new life in the Holy Spirit.^[189]

“Transforming himself with the help of grace-filled ascetic effort, a man acquires purity of [nous]^[190] and with this purified [nous] comes to see the mysteries of God… only the [nous] that has been cleansed by grace can offer pure, spiritual knowledge… Perseverance in prayer cleanses the [nous], illumines it, and fills it with the light of truth… The cleansing of the [nous] is not a dialectical, discursive and theoretical activity, but an act of grace through experience and is ethical in every respect. The [nous] is purified by fasting, vigils, silence, prayer, and other ascetic practices… The purpose of all laws and commandments of God is purity of heart… But there is a certain difference between purity of heart and purity of [nous]. Saint Isaac writes: “In what does purity of [nous] differ from purity of heart? Purity of [nous] is one thing, but purity of heart is another. For the [nous] is one of the senses of the soul, but the heart contains the interior senses and governs them. It is their root. And if the root is holy, then the branches are also holy. If then, the heart is purified, clearly all the senses are purified.”^[191]

“A pure heart and pure [nous] engender pure knowledge. The organs of knowledge, when purified, healed, and turned towards God, give a pure and healthy knowledge of God and, when turned towards creation, give a pure and healthy knowledge of creation…. In order to acquire spiritual knowledge, a man must first be freed from natural knowledge… If a man allows himself to be caught in the web of natural knowledge, it is more difficult for him to free himself from it than to cast off iron bonds, and his life is lived against the edge of a sword.

When a man begins to follow the path of faith, he must lay aside once and for all his old methods of knowing, for faith has its own methods. Then natural knowledge ceases and spiritual knowledge takes its place. Natural knowledge is contrary to faith, for faith, and all that comes from faith, is ‘the destruction of the laws of knowledge’ though not of spiritual, but of natural knowledge.

The chief characteristic of natural knowledge is its approach by examination and experimentation. This is in itself ‘a sign of uncertainty about the truth.’ Faith, on the contrary, follows a pure and simple way of thought that is far removed from all guile and methodical examination. These two paths lead in opposite directions…. ‘Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.’^[192]Natural knowledge stands opposed both to simplicity of heart and simplicity of thought. This knowledge only works within the limits of nature but faith has its own path beyond nature. The more a man devotes himself to the ways of natural knowledge, the more he is seized on by fear and the less he can free himself from it.”^[193]

“This natural knowledge to which St. Isaac refers appears in modern philosophy under 3 headings: realism based on the senses, epistemological criticism, and monism. These three approaches all limit the power, reality, force, worth, criteria, and extent of knowledge to within the bounds of visible nature – to the extent that these coincide with the limits of the human senses as organs of knowledge…. Nevertheless, this natural knowledge, according to Saint Isaac, is not at fault. It is not to be rejected. It is just that faith is higher than it is. This knowledge is only to be condemned insofar as, by the different means it uses, it turns against faith. But when this knowledge ‘is joined with faith, becoming one with her, clothing itself in her burning thoughts,’ when it ‘acquires wings of passionlessness,’ then, using other means than natural ones, it rises up from the earth ‘into the realm of its Creator,’ into the supernatural. This knowledge is then fulfilled by faith and receives the power to ‘rise to the heights,’ to perceive him who is beyond all perception and to ‘see the brightness that is incomprehensible to the mind and knowledge of created beings.’ Knowledge is the level from which a man rises up to the heights of faith. When he reaches these heights, he has no more need of it, for it is written: ‘we know in part but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.’^[194]”^[195]

St. Justin explains the tension between the degrees of knowledge, and the changes knowledge undergoes as it moves from the mundane, to the spiritual, to the divine:

“Knowledge is a gift of God to the nature of rational beings, given to them at the beginning, at their creation. It is naturally simple and undivided, like the light from the sun, but in its function in relation to the body, the soul, and the spirit it changes and becomes divided. At its lowest level, knowledge follows the desires of the flesh, concerning itself with the riches, vain glory, dress, repose of body, and the search for rational wisdom. This knowledge invents the Arts and Sciences and all that adorns the body in this visible world. But in all this, such knowledge is contrary to faith. It is known as mere knowledge, for it is deprived of all thought of the divine and, by its fleshly character, brings to the mind an irrational weakness, because in it the mind is overcome by the body and its concern is for the things of this world… That which the apostle said, ‘knowledge puffeth up,’^[196] was obviously of this knowledge, which is not linked with faith and hope in God and not of true knowledge… knowledge that comes of the flesh is criticized by Christians, who see it as opposed not only to faith but to every act of virtue.”^[197]

“[The] first knowledge comes from continual study and the desire to learn. The second comes from a proper way of life and a clearly held faith. The third comes from faith alone, for in it knowledge is done away, activity ceases, and the senses become superfluous. For the mysteries of the spirit, ‘which are beyond knowledge and are not apprehended either by the bodily senses nor the rational powers of the mind, God has given us a faith by which we know only that these mysteries exist.’… all the virtues have a role to play in this spiritual knowledge, for it is the fruit of the practice of the virtues. Faith ‘engenders the fear of God,’ and from this fear of God follow repentance and the practice of the virtues, which itself gives birth to spiritual knowledge… the first and chief basis of spiritual knowledge is a healthy soul, a healthy organ of knowledge… it is very difficult, and often impossible, to express in words the mystery and nature of knowledge. In the realm of human thought, there is no ready definition that can explain it completely… [St. Isaac defines knowledge as] the perception of eternal life… to perceive all things in God… knowledge is therefore victory over death, the linking of this life with immortal life and the uniting of man with God… such knowledge is a mystical fabric woven on the loom of the soul by the man who is united with God… what is truth? St. Isaac answers thus: ‘truth is the perception of things that is given by God’ in other words: the perception of God is truth. If this perception exists in a man, he both has and knows the truth. If he does not have this perception, then truth does not exist for him… It is the man who restores and transforms his organs of knowledge by the practice of the virtues that comes to the perception and knowledge of the truth. For him faith and knowledge, and all that goes with them, are one indivisible and organic whole… the light of truth increases and decreases according to a man’s way of life… a body given over to pleasure cannot be the abode of the knowledge of God… in the person of the ascetic of faith, knowledge, of its very nature, turns into [theoria] … [which is a] prayerful concentration of soul, through the action of grace, on the mysteries that surpass our understanding and are abundantly present not only in the Holy Trinity but in the person of man himself and in the whole of God’s creation. In [theoria], the person of the ascetic of faith lives above the senses, above the categories of time and space. He has a vivid awareness of the links that bind him to the higher world and is nourished by revelations that contain that which ‘eye has not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man.’^[198]… The life of the Spirit is an activity in which the senses have no part… transformed by prayer and other ascetic practices, the mind becomes purified and learns to contemplate God with divine and not human eyes.”^[199]

“[The Kingdom of Heaven] is not found through the activity of thought, but can be tasted by grace. Until a man cleanses himself he is in no state even to hear of the Kingdom, for no one can acquire it from teaching, only through purity of heart. God gives pure thoughts to those who live pure lives… from purity of thought comes the enlightenment of the understanding. From there, grace leads the [nous] to the realm where the senses have no power, where they neither instruct nor are instructed.”^[200]

“One thing is certain: that knowledge, on all levels, depends on man’s religious and moral state… The virtues are not only powers creating knowledge, they are the principles and source of knowledge… It could even be possible to say that the virtues are the sense organs of knowledge. Advancing from one virtue to another, a man moves from one form of comprehension to another… knowledge is an action, and ascesis, of the whole human person, and not of one part of his being – whether it be the [nous], the understanding, the will, the body, or the senses. And every act of knowledge, and every thought, feeling, and desire, the whole man is involved with his entire being… In this theanthropic way of life and knowledge, there is nothing that is unreal, abstract, or hypothetical. Here all is real with an irresistible reality, for all is based on experience. In the person of Christ the God-man, transcendent divine reality is shown forth and defined in an utterly empirical way… For the true Christian, Orthodox philosophy is in fact the theanthropic ascesis of the [nous] and of the whole human person.”^[201]

We see here clearly from these Holy Fathers that knowledge of God is noetic, not rational, and that rational concepts about God merely point man in his spiritual orientation towards purification and the spiritual perception of God, which is completely outside the realm of concepts and the rational intellect. The place of the rational faculty is the guidance of man in the practice of the virtues in order to prepare his soul for the direct noetic experience of God. St. Maximos the Confessor explains:

“For they say that what is particular to the mind is the understanding of intelligible things, the virtues, the sciences, the principles of the arts, the power of choice, and deliberation, whereas what is general to it are judgements, the power of assent, dissent, and impulses – some of which belong solely to intellectual contemplation, and others to the capacity for rational thinking.

If, then, it was by means of these that the saints preserved their proper mode of life, then the blessed Gregory, in mentioning only their ‘reason’ and ‘contemplation’, is in fact recommending to the saints all the principles of virtue and knowledge in summary fashion, for it was through these that the saints devoted themselves to reflection on God cognitively in contemplation, and it was by making prudent use of reason that they imprinted the divine form within themselves by the stamp of the virtues. It seems clear, then, that the blessed teacher did not consider it necessary to mention the bodily practice as asceticism, for he knew that by itself it does not create virtue, but merely manifests it, and that it is but the servant of divine thoughts and ideas.”^[202]

2.) i.) c.) The Places of the Rational and Noetic Faculties

The capability of the rational faculty for comprehension is restricted to created things. St. Athanasios Parios explains that “all these things which the rational faculty investigates are creatures of God”^[203]:

“A great and wonderful gift has been given by God to man: the faculty of reason. This invents various sciences. Employing this faculty, man digs up from the earth various kinds of metals and precious stones. Then he examines the different species of animals: the quadrupeds, the bipeds; those that crawl on the earth, the birds, the terrestrial animals, the aquatic, and the amphibious; the wild and the tame, the viviparous and the oviparous. He examines the various kinds of trees: the evergreen and those that shed their leaves, those that are fruitless and the fruitbearing. He seeks to find out which trees are suitable for the needs of the various arts, and which are useful only as firewood.

Reason does not stop here. It leaves the globe and ascends to the atmosphere. And it rises much higher than the atmosphere, and investigates the heavenly bodies: which are immobile and which are mobile and are called planets. It investigates and observes the eclipses of the sun and of the moon, as well as of the other planets.”^[204]

While limited to the comprehension of created realities, the rational faculty does, however, participate in the experience of God while being surpassed in this experience, Romanides explains:

“In the experience of glorification, the manifestation of God, man’s reason is inspired and translates the experience into language.”^[205]

So, man’s rational faculty is incapable of comprehending the uncreated. God can only be understood by those who participate in God:

“The philosophers spoke about physical and metaphysical things, and asserted that human reason could understand metaphysical things. According to the Fathers, however, human beings can understand created things with their rational faculty, whereas knowledge of uncreated reality is a gift from God and comes about through the ‘uncreated, self-revealing eye of God’, in other words, through the uncreated glory-energy of God, as it says in the Psalms: ‘In Your light we shall see light’ (Ps. 35[36]: 10).”^[207]

Fr. John explains this idea in the context of a phrase from Psalm 35 which is also said in the Doxology that is read by many Orthodox Christians daily in the service of Compline:

“Someone who does not have the uncreated ‘self-revealing’ eye of God, by means of which God sees Himself, cannot see what is uncreated. That is why, according to the Fathers’ interpretation, the phrase ‘In Your light we shall see light’ means that within the uncreated Light we shall see the uncreated Light. That is to say, anyone who is not within the Light does not see the Light.”^[208]

Fr. John Romanides and the Holy Fathers are in complete agreement that that which is uncreated cannot be comprehended by the rational faculty through rational analysis of created concepts, but rather is experienced through man’s participation in the divine energies. Fr. John utilized different terminology to explain this empirical reality of the spiritual life, but the essence of his teaching is in complete unity with St. Isaac, St. Justin Popovich, and the consensus of the Church Fathers:

“Created words are used in the first stages of perfection, but they are not absolute, in the sense that created words are used so that someone can be cured by means of these created words, under the guidance of a spiritual father, by Holy Scripture, by the writings of the Fathers of the Church and by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Once he reaches the stage of glorification, however, this experience of glorification goes beyond words and concepts, because he arrives at ineffable words.

As he has arrived at ineffable words, this means that he has risen above Holy Scripture in what he knows about God. This does not mean that he has higher knowledge than Holy Scripture. It means he has the same experience as the Prophets and Apostles and saints of the Church. From the point of view of glorification, he has the same experience. He may not have reached the same level of the experience, because he may have illumination and vision, but may not have continuous vision, but he has experience of God…

In glorification Holy Scripture, theology and dogma are abolished. This is the purpose of Holy Scripture and dogma. In what sense? They constantly remain for those who tread the path of purification and illumination. They also always remain in the state of glorification. The one who is glorified goes beyond the concepts and words and sees the uncreated reality, which has no similarity at all with them.

This does not mean, however, that these words and concepts can be abandoned, because, if someone does not proceed by means of these words and concepts, by means of purification and exertion, he will not reach glorification. That is the problem. These are the indispensable medicines to enable someone to reach glorification.”^[209]

Fr. John is not at all saying that because dogmatic and Scriptural knowledge is abandoned in the experience of glorification that this Scriptural and dogmatic knowledge is therefore false. Neither is he saying that this conceptual knowledge is relative, as perennialists or ecumenists would claim when saying that all religions have the same experience of God but just use different human words to describe this experience. Rather, Fr. John says that the Scriptures and conceptual Orthodox dogmatic knowledge are necessary to lead to the direct experiential knowledge of God and that those with authentic experiential knowledge confirm, and do not repudiate, the Scriptural and dogmatic knowledge passed down by the Church. In fact, we know the spiritual experience of the saints is authentic in part because they will confirm the truths of the saints and Fathers that came before them. The Scriptures and dogmas are abolished in the experience of glorification, however, those who experience glorification do not then teach that the faithful should disregard Scriptural and dogmatic knowledge; they are indispensable for the purification of the nous and the attainment of experiential knowledge of God.

2.) ii.) Orthodoxy and Platonism

2.) ii.) a.) God and the Idea of God

The distinction between that which is uncreated and that which is created is a crucial concept in patristic theology. St. Maximos the Confessor says that there is an “infinite distance and difference between the uncreated and the created.”^[210] Likewise, St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches that “the infinity of God exceeds all the significance and comprehension that names can furnish.”^[211] There has been, however, great confusion around this issue due in part to a misunderstanding about the use in the Church Fathers of terms like “idea” which are also found in Platonism. Every notion of “ideas” in the writings of the Fathers clearly preserves the integrity of the uncreated-created distinction.

In general, the Church Fathers often utilized terminology taken from pagan philosophy, but “baptized” and transformed its meaning in order to communicate theological truths:

“The foundation of Byzantine philosophy is neither Platonic nor Aristotelian, but Christian: [it] is revelation; and hence the elements borrowed from Platonism and Aristotelianism and the rest of ancient Greek philosophy acquire in Byzantine thought a new significance, being incorporated into Christianity in an organic manner.”^[212]

Such is the case with the term “idea”, which in Orthodox theology is not understood as any kind of divine conceptualism, which is the notion that there are uncreated conceptual forms from which created things derive their essential patterns. The Greek word eidos (εἶδος) is usually translated into English as “idea”. This word has taken on very different meanings depending on its context in either Hellenistic philosophy, Neoplatonism, the writings of the Church Fathers, or Latin Scholasticism. Lampe’s A Patristic Greek Lexicon looks at the use of eidos in the Fathers and sees its primary meaning in the Fathers as “form”, but not in the sense of Plato. According to Lampe, as a material reality, eidos, any form or idea, is denied of the Godhead itself but is rather identified with Christ. That is to say that Christ is the eidos of God.^[213] So, in the uncreated world, there is not eidos of God; in the created world, the eidos of God is Christ, the God-man. When used in a strict Platonic sense, eidos (that is, the teaching of the Platonic ideas) is dogmatically rejected by the Church. The Platonic ideas are, for example, rejected by St. Gregory the Theologian in his first theological discourse.^[214]

The Platonic ideas are formally anathematized in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy:

“To those who, with the other mythical fabrications, of themselves refashion our understanding of creation and accept the Platonic ideas as true, and who say that matter, being self-subsistent, is given form by these ideas; thereby they plainly calumniate the free will of the Creator Who brought all things into being out of non-being and Who, as Maker, established the beginning and end of all things by His authority and sovereignty. Anathema! Anathema! Anathema!”^[215]

There are no uncreated ideas. There are only man’s created ideas, which are incapable of touching God. God transcends all human ideas. St. Gregory of Nyssa says:

“It is clear, even with a moderate insight into the nature of things, that there is nothing by which we can measure the divine and blessed Life…the supreme and blessed life has no time-extension accompanying its course, and therefore no span nor measure. Created things are confined within the fitting measures…the creative power has assigned to all of them their limits…But this creative power itself, while circumscribing by itself the growth of things, has itself no circumscribing bounds…Every discursive effort of thought to go back beyond the ages will ascend only so far as to see that that which it seeks can never be passed through: time and its contents seem the measure and limit of the movement and working of human thought, but that which lies beyond remains outside its reach; it is a world where it may not tread, unsullied by any object that can be comprehended by man. No form, no place, no size, no reckoning of time, or anything else knowable, is there: and so it is inevitable that our apprehensive faculty, seeking as it does always some object to grasp, must fall back from any side of this incomprehensible existence, and seek in the ages and in the creation which they hold its kindred and congenial sphere…But the existence which is all-sufficient, everlasting, world-enveloping, is not in space, nor in time: it is before these, and above these in an ineffable way; self-contained, knowable by faith alone…A very different account to the Uncreate must be given of Creation: it is this very thing that takes it out of all comparison and connexion with its Maker…the supernatural will not the more for that come within the realm of knowledge, for no mark before the ages indicative of its nature can be found.”^[216]

St. Isaac the Syrian likewise draws a sharp distinction between how the created and the uncreated are apprehended. The uncreated is not understood through forms or mental images:

“[When] the [nous] is exalted above created things, the body also takes leave of tears and of every movement and sensation apart from its natural vitality. For this knowledge does not stoop to take with itself as a companion – figuratively through mental vision – the forms of things of the visible world. ‘Whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth,’ and he heard ‘unspeakable words’.^[217] All that is heard by the ears can be spoken. He did not hear audible sounds, nor did he see a vision composed of the corporeal images of sense perception, but it was by the motions of the understanding, being in rapture, while his will had no fellowship with the body. Eye has never seen such things, nor ear heard the like,^[218] and his heart never imagined that the likeness which his diversified knowledge saw would rise up in it through recollection, I mean those things which God has prepared to show the pure of heart by reason of their deadness to the world. This is not corporeal vision received by means of the eyes of the flesh through gross distinctions, nor phantasies which they themselves form in their minds in an unreal manner. But this is the simplicity of theoria concerning noetic things and the things of faith (which is contrary to partition and divisions that exhibit images composed of elements).”^[219]

The “idea” of God that man discovers through the contemplation of creation is simply that God is the Creator. God in Himself is not understood through created things (which include words and concepts), but rather the fact that He exists and is Creator is understood.

Romans 1:20 is often misunderstood to mean that man acquires conceptual knowledge of God from observing creation:

“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things which are made, both His eternal power and divinity, so that they are without excuse.”

St. Basil the Great explains rather that creation points man to the fact that God exists:

“But in our belief about God, first comes the idea that God is. This we gather from His works. For, as we perceive His wisdom, His goodness, and all His invisible things from the creation of the world, so we know Him. So, too, we accept Him as our Lord. For since God is the Creator of the whole world, and we are a part of the world, God is our Creator. This knowledge is followed by faith, and this faith by worship.”^[220]

Man does not discover God or acquire knowledge of Him through created things; he comes to the “idea” of his Creator. This distinction between God and the idea of God is very important.

St. John of Damascus likewise teaches that the knowledge revealed through creation is not of the divinity itself but rather that God exists:

“The Godhead, then, is ineffable and incomprehensible…Nevertheless, God has not gone so far as to leave us in complete ignorance, for through nature the knowledge of the existence of God has been revealed by Him to all men. The very creation of its harmony and ordering proclaims the majesty of the divine nature.”^[221]

St. John also makes this crucial distinction between God and the idea of God by saying that “the concept of the Creator is arrived at by analogy of His creatures.”^[222] God is not arrived at by created analogies, but rather the concept of Him is, namely, that He exists and is the Creator of the world.

St. Gregory the Theologian explains that the names ascribed to God come from creation and that they are only able to describe the relations between God and creation and the effects that God has on creation. As he says, creation can lead us to belief in the existence of God but cannot lead us to true knowledge of God, which is experiential and requires the purification of the heart:

“It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words is an impossibility, as one of the Greek teachers of Divinity taught… But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him… I would have you know that you have only a shadow… [however] our preaching is not empty, nor our Faith vain, nor is this the doctrine we proclaim… For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is. Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining Cause of all things: our eyes, because they fall on visible objects, and see them in beautiful stability and progress, immovably moving and revolving if I may so say; natural Law, because through these visible things and their order, it reasons back to their Author… And thus to us also is manifested That which made and moves and preserves all created things, even though He be not comprehended by the mind… For what will you conceive the Deity to be, if you rely upon all the approximations of reason? Or to what will reason carry you, O most philosophic of men and best of Theologians, who boast of your familiarity with the Unlimited?… Nay, the whole question of His Being is still left for the further consideration and exposition of him who truly has the nous of God and is advanced in theoria.”^[223]

There also many who misunderstand the terminology of St. Maximos the Confessor and read Platonic interpretations into his writings. One such example is this statement: “τῶν θείων νοημάτων τε καὶ λογισμῶν ύπουργόν” which Fr. Maximos Constas translates as “the servant of divine thoughts and ideas”^[224] which could also be rendered as “minister of divine meaning and thoughts.” Such language is related to divine providence and salvific workings, not any metaphysical dogmas. What is spoken of here is not metaphysical entities but rather the intentions that God has towards man’s life that are actualized through asceticism.

Not a single place exists in the Scriptures or the Holy Fathers where one sees “ideas” existing in either man or the divine that perform any analogical function to each other. Whenever this activity is mentioned, it is condemned as Platonism. Therefore, the patristic teaching holds as consistent: there is no similarity between the created and the uncreated.

2.) ii.) b) The Logoi

St. Maximos the Confessor utilized the term “logoi” to speak about an Orthodox conception of divine ideas, however, its meaning has become grossly misunderstood by many Orthodox Christians today. The logoi have been incorrectly equated with a modified version of the Platonic ideas, the only difference being their location in the divine energies rather than the divine essence, and that “the logoi [are] the uncreated divine ideas that are archetypes and patterns of creation”^[225]. Vladimir Lossky explains that the logoi and the divine ideas are the “will-thoughts” of God:

“The Logos is the divine hearth from which part the creative rays, the particular logoi of the creatures, these causative words of God which at the same time create and name the beings… It is a free and personal God who creates everything through his will and wisdom, and the ideas of all things are contained in this will and wisdom, and not in the divine essence… [For Orthodoxy] it is unthinkable that God, to create, would be satisfied to produce a replica of his own thought, ultimately of himself… [Regarding Platonism, the Greek Fathers] did not hesitate to use its language, to speak of “paradigms” and “ideas”. But they have impregnated this language with a thoroughly biblical respect for the sensory and for the living God… The ideas, then, no longer are a determination necessary of the divine being, but the creative will, the living words of God… The creative will of God involves order and reason, it inseminates with living ideas the ‘spacing out’ of creation… St. John of Damascus speaks of creation in terms of ideas-wills, or rather will-thoughts^[226]… thus, the divine ideas are inseparable from the creative intention… The Ideas are the wisdom in the divine work, or rather, are wisdom at work: exemplarism, if one wishes, but dynamic, that of a will-thought, of a will-word in which the logoi (reasons) of things are rooted… there is a word for every thing, a word in every thing, a word that represents its norm of existence and its way to transformation.”^[227]

This is in agreement with St. Maximos the Confessor, who teaches quite clearly that the logoi are the divine wills, or “predeterminations”, of God:

“Saint Dionysios the Areopagite teaches us that Scripture calls these logoi ‘predeterminations’ and ‘divine wills’… If God created all things by His will – which no one denies – and if it is always pious and correct to say that God knows His own will, and that He willingly made each of the things that He made, it follows that God knows beings as His own wills, for He willingly brought them into being. Based on these considerations, I think that Scripture, consistent with these same principles, says to Moses: I know you above all; ^[228] and concerning some others: The Lord knows those who are His own.^[229] To still others it says: I know you not.^[230] In each case, the voluntary decision to move either in accord with the will and logos of God or against it prepared each person to hear the divine voice.”^[231]

The logoi, according to the Fathers, are not divine ideas as in the teaching of Plato. As Lossky points out, the Fathers utilized Platonic terminology but reappropriated it; it thus takes on new meaning in Orthodox theology. Words like “form”, “principle”, “idea”, “archetype”, and so on do not have the same meanings that they have in Platonism when they are utilized by the Fathers. St. Gregory the Theologian says one should “attack the ideas of Plato”^[232] as he lists various false philosophies. Regarding the creation of the world, St. Gregory says that “the Father impressed the ideas of these same actions, and the Word brings them to pass”.^[233]

The logoi, then, are synonymous with predestination, to use Biblical language. They are called “predeterminations” by St. Dionysios the Areopagite. They are God’s divine wills towards created things. The logoi of a man could be described simply as the will of God for that man. Fr. Melchisedec Toronen interprets St. Maximos thus:

“The connection between God and creation in Maximus’ system exists through the logoi of beings. These logoi are, according to Maximus, God’s intentions or wills for his creation. They pre-exist eternally in the Logos as his wills, and are realized in time… Differentiation in the cosmos springs from God’s very own purpose for the universe. It is his pre-eternal will that there is multiplicity and variety in the universe.”^[234]

Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos likewise understands the logoi to be God’s wills towards creation:

“Beyond any objective and necessary existence of logoi, reminiscent of the Platonic ideas, [St.] Maximus accepts the term ‘ideas’ for the logoi, interpreting them as ‘exemplars of being’, but in the sense of the ‘everlasting intellections’ of the personal Word, i.e., His ‘good wills’ and His ‘divine purposes’ for each separate created thing, into which He pours its ‘innate wisdom’ and ‘innate life’ through its logoi, thus demonstrating His good ‘pre-eternal intention’. This connection of the divine logoi of entities with the divine will underlines the fact that the logoi are not ideal individualities with their own motive force, but specific volitional manifestations of divine Love.”^[235]

“By identifying wills and logoi, Maximus avoids making creation a matter of necessity. The world is created out of nothing, at the appropriate time, and is the result not of thought but of God’s free and loving will.”^[236]

The logoi should be understood not as uncreated principles but rather the creative energies of God, a distinction which separates Orthodoxy from Platonism:

“[The logoi] are not Plato’s ideas nor Aristotle’s forms, but the uncreated energy of God which maintains the whole creation. This means there are no created laws in creation, but there are uncreated ‘logoi’, the uncreated energy of God that directs it towards a definite goal, that of its renewal, its transformation into a new heaven and a new earth, into a new creation.”^[237]

The logoi of a man is not a conceptual pattern for his being but rather the will of God for his deification.

2.) ii.) c.) Universals

The claim has been made that Romanides “rejects all notion of universals”^[238], and is contrasted to the fact that St. Maximos the Confessor affirmed universals. St. Maximos the Confessor places universals within the realm of the created, not uncreated, and not the logoi:

“Universals are contained by particulars through alteration whereas particulars mutate into universals when they are destroyed by dissolution. And the coming into being of the former is inaugurated by the destruction of the latter, while the destruction of the latter comes about through the generation of the former, for the combination of one universal with another, which brings more particulars into being, is a process of alteration that results in the destruction of the universal, whereas the reduction of particulars to universals, through the dissolution of their composition, is at once the cause of their destruction and the ongoing existence and creation of universals… this is the constitution of the sensible world.”^[239]

“God alone exercises providence over all beings, and not simply over some beings and not others, as certain secular philosophers have taught, but absolutely over all things, including universals and particulars, according to the single and unchanging purpose of His goodness.

…

For the universals subsist in the particulars, and do not in any way possess their principle of being and existence by themselves, then it is quite clear that, if the particulars were to disappear, the corresponding universals would cease to exist.”^[240]

“For particulars are never predicated of universals, nor species of genera, nor what is contained of what contains, and this is why universals cannot be converted into particulars, nor genera into species, nor common qualities into the traits of an individual, nor – to put it concisely – what contains into what is contained.”^[241]

“But the Wisdom and Prudence of God the Father is the Lord Jesus Christ, who through the power of wisdom sustains the universals of beings, and through the prudence of understanding embraces the parts from which they are completed, since He is by nature the Creator and Provider of all things, and through Himself draws into one those that are separated, dissolved strife among being, and binding together all things in peaceful friendship and undivided concord, but in heaven and on earth, as the divine apostle says.”^[242]

Fr. John Romanides likewise rejects the notion of uncreated (but not created) universals; it is incorrect to assert that he rejected “all notion of universals”^[243]:

“The belief that reality is an ingenerate [i.e. uncreated] composition of universals, ideas, and essences is completely alien to the Holy Scriptures and the patristic tradition of the Eastern Church. For God does not also have a parallel, ingenerate, ideological world of universals. On the contrary, He created this world from nothing, making it material and immaterial, visible and invisible, changeable, and with cycles of seasons, winds, currents, moons, and more.”^[244]

The philosophical idea that changeable things and things in motion are bereft of reality is unacceptable from a spiritual point of view, as Fr. John explains:

“‘Learn, O man, of His works, of the change of seasons according to their times, and cycles of winds, and the orderly path of elements, and the orderly course of days and nights, and months and years… and of the dew that falls, and of steady rains, and of periods of abundance of sudden cloudbursts, of the multitude of movements of the heavenly bodies…’ This reality, however, is not what it is because the essences and universals in question are immaterial, bodiless, uncreated, and without beginning or end but simply because it is how God wants it.”^[245]

Elsewhere, Fr. John says:

“Palamas rejects the existence of uncreated universal ideas by insisting that each creature, and not each species or genus, has its corresponding uncreated, divine energy or will… For Palamas, knowledge of God is based on the suprarational experience of the prophets, apostles, and saints; it transcends all rational knowledge and cannot, therefore, be understood or defined in rational categories, or dealt with dialectically and syllogistically, taking non-existent universals as a starting point.”^[246]

“Archetype” is another term commonly associated with Platonism. St. Gregory the Theologian uses it not in a Platonic sense, but rather in the context of a life of spiritual ascension:

“What God is in nature and essence, no man ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question which he who will may examine and decide. In my opinion it will be discovered when that within us which is godlike and divine, I mean our nous and logos, shall have mingled with its Like, and the image shall have ascended to the Archetype, of which it has now the desire. And this I think is the solution of that vexed problem as to ‘We shall know even as we are known.’^[247]”^[248]

The knowledge of God comes to a man who is divinized in the Uncreated God. This is what the Apostle Paul explained occurs in communion with God: “How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which is not lawful for a man to utter”.^[249] When St. Gregory says that “our nous shall have mingled with its Like” and that “we shall know even as we are known”, he is speaking of the same reality that Romanides points to in his interpretation of Psalm 35 where it is said: “In Thy Light shall we see Light”. A man sees and knows God only when he is in God.

2.) ii.) d.) Maintaining the Created-Uncreated Distinction

Terms like “form”, “logoi”, “archetype”, “idea” and so forth are all created concepts utilized to point towards a reality that is totally beyond them. These terms, and any philosophical terms for that matter, do not serve the same function in patristic theology as they do in philosophy or the man-made religious systems of heterodoxy and paganism.

St. Symeon the New Theologian speaks to the fact that we worship the Living God, not a God of a philosophical system:

“The words of men are ephemeral and pass away, but the word of God is something alive and real and active. It is, in fact, true God, God and truth itself. It transcends all human thought and speech.”^[250]

St. Dionysios the Areopagite teaches that God surpasses all possible explanation by any created concept:

“We worship with reverent silence the unutterable Truths and, with the unfathomable and holy veneration of our mind, approach that Mystery of Godhead which exceeds all Mind and Being…[It] is not lawful to any lover of that Truth which is above all truth to celebrate It as Reason or Power or Mind or Life or Being, but rather as most utterly surpassing all condition, movement, life, imagination, conjecture, name, discourse, thought, conception, being, rest, dwelling, union, limit, infinity, everything that exists.”^[251]

After St. Maximos speaks of “the infinite distance between the uncreated and created”^[252] he goes on to say:

“It is not possible for the infinite and the finite to exist simultaneously on the same level of being. Indeed, no argument will ever be able to demonstrate the simultaneous interdependence of being and what transcends being, or of the measureless and what is subject to measurement, or that the absolute can be ranked with the relative, or that something of which no specific category can positively be predicated can be placed in the same class as what is constituted by all the categories.”^[253]

“The Logos is neither called, nor considered, nor is, in His entirety, anything that can be attributed to anything else, since He is beyond all being, and is not participated in by any being whatsoever.”^[254]

“His infinite transcendence, is ineffable and incomprehensible, and exists beyond all creation and beyond all the differences and distinctions which exist and can be conceived of within it.”^[255]

When the Church Fathers use similar terminology to that of Platonism, they are changing the meaning of these terms, and the distinction and total dissimilarity between God and His creation is maintained.

2.) iii.) Concepts and Analogy

2.) iii.) a.) The Divine Names

According to one critic: “Romanides has convinced his disciples that all terms, words, symbols and statements about God in the Bible, Fathers, and Councils are liable to become ‘idols’. All that matters is direct noetic perception of God. The great contradiction, of course, is that [they learned this] from the writings of Romanides, and not by their own direct noetic perception of God. At that point we can laugh, since Romanides’ books are created forms and symbols”.^[256]

We discussed previously the view that Romanides had towards divinely inspired words about God; that they “are indispensable medicines to reach glorification”.^[257] The fact that concepts are liable to become idols pertains to the first type of knowledge, that is, knowledge that concerns created things and not God, and so there is no contradiction. That all concepts are liable to become idols is, in fact, taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa:

“The divine word at the beginning forbids that the Divine be likened to any of the things known by men, since every concept which comes from some comprehensible image by an approximate understanding and by guessing at the divine nature constitutes an idol of God and does not proclaim God. Religious virtue is divided into two parts, into that which pertains to the Divine and that which pertains to right conduct (for purity of life is a part of religion). Moses learns at first the things which must be known about God (namely, that none of those things known by human comprehension is to be ascribed to him). Then he is taught the other side of virtue, learning by what pursuits the virtuous life is perfected.”^[258]

Some Orthodox apologists have attempted to argue that analogical predication about God is permissible so long as we do not compare things of this world with the divine essence or vice versa, but rather we compare concepts and created things to the divine energies. This is essentially a reworking of the Roman Catholic teaching of analogia entis (analogy of being), the only modification being the application of the essence-energies distinction. Analogia entis teaches that analogies can be made between God and creation and that these can provide indirect or imperfect cognitive knowledge of God. However, in reality and in patristic theology, neither our imaginative mental faculty or our reason provides us with knowledge of God. As the Fathers and Fr. John taught, there is no analogy between our created knowledge and the uncreated knowledge and revelation of God. The Fathers teach that God “is beyond sense-perception and beyond concept”^[259] and that “all the divine Scripture, through all the different ideas and expressions it applies to God, reveals to us that he is, not who he is.”^[260]

Through an examination of the centrally important patristic work by St. Dionysios the Areopagite, The Divine Names, we will see exactly the same teaching; that the concepts used to speak about God are revealing that He exists, and speak about His relationship with creation, while not ultimately describing God Himself. There is no way in which we can make conceptual analogies between creation and God, since concepts are created, and there is an infinite dissimilarity between the uncreated and the created.

Criticisms of the teachings of Fr. John Romanides have been based on a claim that St. Dionysios the Areopagite made analogies between the created and uncreated. However, St. Dionysios and Romanides teach the same thing; that the words used to describe God are not for the purpose of having a rational understanding of God but rather to aid, through worship and prayer, in the spiritual ascension of the initiated Christian to a direct noetic perception of God.

St. Dionysios begins Chapter 1 of The Divine Names by stating that no names can be used about God that are not used in the Scriptures:

“And here also let us set before our minds the scriptural rule that in speaking about God we should declare the Truth, not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the power which the Spirit stirred up in the Sacred Writers, whereby, in a manner surpassing speech and knowledge, we embrace those truths which, in like manner, surpass them, in that Union which exceeds our faculty, and exercise of discursive, and of intuitive reason. We must not then dare to speak, or indeed to form any conception, of the hidden super-essential Godhead, except those things that are revealed to us from the Holy Scriptures.”^[261]

The divine names do not come from rational reflection and logical reasoning, they can only be taken from what God Himself has revealed in Scripture. St. Dionysios then sets before us the purpose of these names:

“Surpassing Discourse, Intuition and Being; acknowledging which truth let us lift up our eyes towards the steep height, so far as the effluent light of the Divine Scriptures grants its aid, and, as we strive to ascend unto those Supernal Rays, let us gird ourselves for the task with holiness and the reverent fear of God.”^[262]

By “rays” here, St. Dionysios is referring to the divine uncreated energies, and not the divine essence. The divine names do not describe what the energies are but rather they are the means by which we ascend through worship and prayer in spiritual perfection towards participation in God’s energies, while never participating in God’s essence.

For St. Dionysios, the divine names are always utilized in the context of offering praise to God:

“And we press upwards to those beams which in the Holy Scripture shine upon us; wherefrom we gain the light which leads us unto the Divine praises being supernaturally enlightened by them and conformed unto that sacred hymnody, even so as to behold the Divine enlightenments the which through them are given in such wise as fits our powers, and so as to praise the bounteous Origin of all holy illumination.”^[263]

He goes on to say as well that the names of God refer to actions that He does and the way He reveals Himself within creation, and that the reference point for the names is created things. We can, however, directly name the created properties of Jesus Christ since He assumed a human nature:

“Wherefore, in almost all consideration of Divine things we see the Supreme Godhead celebrated with holy praises as One and a Unity, through the simplicity and unity of Its supernatural indivisibility, from whence (as from a unifying power) we attain to unity, and through the supernal conjunction of our diverse and separate qualities are knit together each into a Godlike Oneness, and all together into a mutual Godly union. And It is called the Trinity because Its supernatural fecundity is revealed in a Threefold Personality, wherefrom all Fatherhood in heaven and on earth exists and draws Its name. And It is called the Universal Cause since all things came into being through Its bounty, whence all being springs; and It is called Wise and Fair because all things which keep their own nature uncorrupted are full of all Divine harmony and holy Beauty; and especially It is called Benevolent because, in one of Its Persons, It verily and wholly shared in our human lot, calling unto Itself and uplifting the low estate of man, wherefrom, in an ineffable manner, the simple Being of Jesus assumed a compound state, and the Eternal hath taken a temporal existence, and He who supernaturally transcends all the order of all the natural world was born in our Human Nature without any change or confusion of His ultimate properties.”^[264]

Critics have claimed that the fact that Jesus “spoke with sound and vocal chords (created mediums)”^[265] renders a denial of analogy between God and creation absurd. St. Dionysios, however, as we have just seen, clarifies that Christ can be described with words as it pertains to His properties as a man. Romanides likewise teaches that we can make analogies and claim rational knowledge about God insofar as it pertains to Christ in His human nature:

“St. Dionysios the Areopagite has written a very beautiful passage that is cited by the Fathers. It tells us that in the final analysis God is neither Unity nor Trinity^[266], because God does not correspond to anything the human mind conceives or could possibly conceive. For example, we say there is one God. Of course, when we say the word ‘one’, we visualize a number or a unit. We imagine that there is one God just like any isolated individual is one person. The same thing happens when we say that God is three Persons. But God is not three anything. He is not three subjects. He is not three objects. He is not one subject and He is not one object. Whenever we think, we always think in terms of a subject and an object. The subject is what observes while the object is what is observed. But when we say that the Father loves the Son, we are not dealing with a subject-object relationship as St. Augustine mistakenly thought. In this case, the Father is not the subject or the One Who loves and the Son is not the object or the One Who is loved. Augustine called God “Love that loves itself” and used this subject-object relationship in order to construct a theology of the Holy Trinity. But since God is neither a subject nor an object, He cannot be construed as the subject of His love or the object of His love. So in God, there are not three Persons like three persons in a family. Now there are certain Orthodox theologians of Russian descent who claim that God is a personal God. Western tradition makes similar statements (St. Augustine, On The Trinity, Book VIII Chpt 8). But in Patristic tradition, God is not a personal God. In fact, God is not even God. God does not correspond to anything we can conceive or would be able to conceive. The relationship between God and man is not a personal relationship and it is also not a subject-object relationship…The relations between God and man are not like the relations between fellow human beings. Why? Because we are not on the same level or in the same business with God. What we have just said holds true until the Incarnation. However, after the Incarnation of God the Word, we can have a personal relationship with God by means of and on account of the Incarnation. But this relationship is with God as the God-man.”^[267]

Returning to St. Dionysios, he explains that it is in the context of praise and worship that we can draw on names taken from creation and apply them to God, while also at the same time maintaining that God is utterly nameless:

“But if It is greater than all Reason and all knowledge, and hath Its firm abode altogether beyond Mind and Being, and circumscribes, compacts, embraces and anticipates all things while Itself is altogether beyond the grasp of them all, and cannot be reached by any perception, imagination, conjecture, name, discourse, apprehension, or understanding, how then is our Discourse concerning the Divine Names to be accomplished, since we see that the Super-Essential Godhead is unutterable and nameless?…

And godlike Minds, angelically entering (according to their powers) unto such states of union and being deified and united, through the ceasing of their natural activities, unto the Light Which surpasseth Deity, can find no more fitting method to celebrate its praises than to deny It every manner of Attribute. For by a true and supernatural illumination from their blessed union Therewith, they learn that It is the Cause of all things and yet Itself is nothing, because It super-essentially transcends them all. Thus, as for the Super-Essence of the Supreme Godhead (if we would define the Transcendence of its Transcendent Goodness) it is not lawful to any lover of that Truth which is above all truth to celebrate It as Reason or Power or Mind or Life or Being, but rather as most utterly surpassing all condition, movement, life, imagination, conjecture, name, discourse, thought, conception, being, rest, dwelling, union, limit, infinity, everything that exists. And yet since, as the Subsistence of goodness, It, by the very fact of Its existence, is the Cause of all things, in celebrating the bountiful Providence of the Supreme Godhead we must draw upon the whole creation. For It is both the central Force of all things, and also their final Purpose, and is Itself before them all, and they all subsist in It; and through the fact of Its existence the world is brought into being and maintained; and It is that which all things desire—those which have intuitive or discursive Reason seeking It through knowledge, the next rank of beings through perception, and the rest through vital movement, or the property of mere existence belonging to their state. Conscious of this, the Sacred Writers celebrate It by every Name while yet they call It Nameless.”^[268]

It is with this principle in mind that St. Dionysios refers to God by a myriad of names from the Scriptures, while also cautioning us to “not seek by any means of any Name to acquire a knowledge of God”:

“For instance, they call It Nameless when they say that the Supreme Godhead Itself, in one of the mystical visions whereby It was symbolically manifested, rebuked him who said: ‘What is thy name?’ and, as though bidding him not seek by any means of any Name to acquire a knowledge of God, made the answer: ‘Why askest thou thus after My Name seeing it is secret?’ Now is not the secret Name precisely that which is above all names and nameless, and is fixed beyond every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come? On the other hand, they attribute many names to It when, for instance, they speak of It as declaring: ‘I am that I am,’ or ‘I am the Life,’ or ‘the Light,’ or ‘God,’ or ‘the Truth,’ and when the Inspired Writers themselves celebrate the Universal Cause with many titles drawn from the whole created universe, such as ‘Good,’ and ‘Fair,’ and ‘Wise,’ as ‘Beloved,’ as ‘God of Gods’ and ‘Lord of Lords’, and ‘Holy of Holies,’ as ‘Eternal,’ as ‘Existent’ and as ‘Creator of Ages,’ as ‘Giver of Life,’ as ‘Wisdom,’ as ‘Mind,’ as ‘Word,’ as ‘Knower,’ as ‘possessing beforehand all the treasures of knowledge,’ as ‘Power,’ as ‘Ruler,’ as ‘King of kings,’ as ‘Ancient of Days;’ and as ‘Him that is the same and whose years shall not fail,’ as ‘Salvation,’ as ‘Righteousness,’ as ‘Sanctification,’ as ‘Redemption,’ as ‘Surpassing all things in greatness,’ and yet as being in ‘the still small breeze.’”^[269]

The names for God come from our experience of creation, and even at that, only the names that are used in the Scriptures. There is nothing whatsoever of Platonism in the writings of St. Dionysios; he does not search out for uncreated universals through speculation. He does not attempt to imagine any names for God based on analogous created realities, rather, he restricts himself to the names we are given for God from Scripture. The divine names come to us as a revelation (not from analogy) of words to be used for the worship of God, not for rationally explaining God. God is not an object of speculation. Rather, God is the focus of our worship. This is the critical difference between these two approaches to the divine names. One is philosophy, the other is liturgy. Having explained the namelessness of God “on the one hand” and the Scriptural and created names with which we worship God “on the other hand,” St. Dionysios explains why these two realities both exist:

“Thus, then, the Universal and Transcendent Cause must both be nameless and also possess the names of things in order that It may truly be an universal Dominion, the Centre of creation on which all things depend, as on their Cause and Origin and Goal; and that, according to the Scriptures, It may be all in all, and may be truly called the Creator of the world, originating and perfecting and maintaining all things… and thus we draw from the whole creation Its appropriate praises and Its names…At present, collecting from the Scriptures what concerns the matter in hand, and employing as our canon the rule we have described, and guiding our search thereby, let us proceed to an exposition of God’s Intelligible Names; and as the Hierarchical Law directs us in all study of Theology, let us approach these godlike contemplations (for such indeed they are) with our hearts predisposed unto the vision of God, and let us bring holy ears to the exposition of God’s holy Names, implanting holy Truths in holy instruments according to the Divine command, and withholding these things from the mockery and laughter of the uninitiate, or, rather, seeking to redeem those wicked men (if any such there be) from their enmity towards God… And for myself I pray God grant me worthily to declare the beneficent and manifold Names of the Unutterable and Nameless Godhead, and that He will not take away the word of Truth out of my mouth.”^[270]

St. Dionysios explains clearly here that the purpose of the divine names is not rational philosophical understanding, but rather for the initiated (i.e. the baptized, chrismated, and communing Orthodox Christians) to offer spiritual praise to God and to ascend in heavenly theoria, which is to say, spiritual or noetic knowledge. The names are created constructions to aid in spiritual ascension towards God. This is the context in which they have meaning. Some claim this view “makes the doctrine meaningless”^[271] but this could not be further from the truth; one need only to shift their perspective of what meaning truly entails.

St. Dionysios goes on to explain that all the names of God speak of the totality of the divinity:

“Now this matter we have discussed elsewhere, and have shown that all the Names proper to God are always applied in Scripture not partially but to the whole, entire, full, complete Godhead, and that they all refer indivisibly, absolutely, unreservedly, and wholly to all the wholeness of the whole and entire Godhead.”^[272]

All Orthodox Christians would agree that the totality of the Godhead cannot possibly be understood philosophically; it thus follows that the purpose of the divine names cannot possibly be to provide man with a philosophical understanding of God.

2.) iii.) b.) Analogy of Hierarchy

The Fathers do in fact have what could be called a type of method of analogy, but it differs from the type of analogy used in the West (analogia entis or other types of analogizing like it). The Fathers use what may be termed an “analogy of hierarchy.” Christos Yannaras explains it:

“Analogy as hierarchy – knowledge as a power analogous to the stages of existential perfection, or the transcendence of alienation – does not represent in the Areopagitical writings [meaning, the writings of St. Dionysios the Areopagite] an intellectual-methodological scheme for grading the quantitative differentiations of knowledge, but articulates an existential reality with knowledge as an experiential-universal participation in this reality… knowledge transcends a static-intellectual understanding… [it is rather] a hierarchical order of the powers, not the quantitative differences of knowledge… [it is] a comprehensive ‘sacred order’ within whose bounds the transmission and every personal existence is ‘raised up in proportion’ (analogós) ‘to the imitation of God’… the entire existential and cognitive hierarchy is an order and energy which ascends dynamically ‘to the imitation of God’… The transmission of knowledge constitutes purification and illumination and perfection… The difference between Byzantium and the West is a difference between two comprehensive epistemological-ethical views of the world, humanity and God… this difference could be summarized in the contrast between the objective-quantitative understanding of analogy and the understanding of analogy as hierarchy”.^[273]

The purpose of analogies about God that utilize created concepts is to lead us higher in our worship. This is the important point that St. Dionysios the Areopagite and many other Fathers make. The context is worship, not ideas or philosophy, St. Dionysios says:

“I must describe the sacred forms given to these heavenly ranks by scripture, for one has to be lifted up through such shapes to the utter simplicity of what is there. We cannot, as mad people do, profanely visualize these heavenly and godlike intelligences as actually having numerous feet and faces… We must not have pictures of flaming wheels whirling in the skies… of multicolored horses… or any of those shapes handed on to us amid all the variety of the revealing symbols of scripture… [this is] a concession to the nature of our own mind… to uplift our mind in a manner suitable to our nature. These pictures have to do with beings so simple that we can neither know nor contemplate them.

…

Sometimes the mysterious tradition of the scriptures represents the sacred blessedness of the transcendent Deity under the form of ‘Word’, ‘Mind’, and ‘Being’ … Now these sacred shapes certainly show more reverence and seem vastly superior to the making of images drawn from the world. Yet they are actually no less defective than this latter, for the Deity is far beyond every manifestation of being and of life; no reference to light can characterize it; every reason or intelligence falls short of similarity to it… God is in no way like the things that have being, and we have no knowledge at all of his incomprehensible and ineffable transcendence and invisibility. Since the way of negation appears to be more suitable to the realm of the divine and since positive affirmations are always unfitting to the hiddenness of the inexpressible, a manifestation through dissimilar shapes is more correctly to be applied to the invisible… [this enables] that part of the soul which longs for things above actually to rise up… So, then, forms, even those drawn from the lowliest matter, can be used, not unfittingly, with regard to heavenly beings. Matter, after all, owes its subsistence to absolute beauty and keeps, throughout its earthly ranks, some echo of intelligible beauty. Using matter, one may be lifted up to the immaterial archetypes. Of course one must be careful to use the similarities as dissimilarities, as discussed, to avoid one-to-one correspondences, to make the appropriate adjustments as one remembers the great divide between the intelligible and the perceptible.”^[274]

Once man’s worship is pure, by the grace and good will of God, He brings us to the other side of our created concepts to the true knowledge and intimate knowing of God. St. Maximos the Confessor explains that the true knowledge of God is entirely beyond and devoid of words and concepts:

“Let us, then, make manifest what is hidden by means of an apophatic negation – leaving aside every capacity to picture the truth by means of figures and signs, being lifted up in silence by the power of the Spirit from written words and visible things to the Word Himself – or let us conceal what has been manifested by giving it positive names and attributes. Otherwise we, like the Greeks, will be murderers of the Word, worshiping creation rather than the creator…^[275] [they] likewise grew thick in syllables and letters… the divine apostle says: The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,^[276] for when the letter is desired only for itself, it tends to kill the indwelling Word in those who are subject to such desire”.^[277]

Our souls penetrate the barrier into experiencing the uncreated. Theology is not something to be understood as a philosophical system but something to be lived and experienced. St. Gregory Palamas, speaking on the Christian life, says:

“[A] person is made divine, not by speculative analogies on the basis of skillful reasoning and observations—perish the thought (for that would be something base and human)”.^[278]

Knowledge of God is not apprehended rationally and cannot be divorced from noetic illumination; it is participative. The newly glorified St. Dimitru Staniloe speaks of this participative reality of spiritual ascent:

“Knowledge of the existent logoi and of the surpassing of them is also itself a rung on the ladder of asceticism. It is evident that the mystical union with God, situated at the very top of this ascent, is not something irrational, but suprarational. It’s not a state won as a result of the debilitation of reason or of an ignorance of the reasons of things, the logoi, but after the surpassing of all the possibilities of reason; it is brought to its supreme force and insight, as well as to the complete knowledge of the rational meanings of things… The [nous] which is elevated, in the phase of union with God, to the direct [theoria] of the Logos, must be ready for the understanding of this womb of all reasons; it must know as many of them as possible, even though the more than unlimited One, which it now knows, puts the way of previous knowledge in the shadows.”^[279]

Romanides did not deny what may be described as the “analogy of hierarchy”. He does, however, reject the analogy of being, as did the Holy Fathers. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy rejects the Platonic ideas, and this rejection is not restricted to an association of the Platonic ideas with the essence nor with the energies of God; the teaching is rejected wholesale, not simply because it locates these ideas in the divine essence. The heretical points that are anathematized are: “accept the Platonic ideas as true,” “matter [is] self-subsistent,” and it “is given form by these ideas.”^[280] When conflating the logoi with universals and/or archetypes, one then is led to believe that the created realm is given form by these ideas, which is exactly what is condemned in the Synodikon. In other words, the analogy of being (analogia entis) is a teaching that has been formally condemned as heresy by the Orthodox Church regardless of whether analogy is applied to the essence or to the energies of God. The relationship that man has to God is one of experience, participation, worship, prayer, and communion. It is not in the realm of concepts, nor is it mediated through concepts, as the Orthodox proponents of a peculiar version of analogy of being would have it. The Church teaches that there are not any uncreated universals, archetypes, or ideas in the Platonic sense and that the uncreated-created distinction found throughout the Fathers precludes a Platonic interpretation of St. Maximos, St. Dionysios the Areopagite, et al. in matters concerning the logoi’s work in creation. We can speak of analogy only in terms of a spiritual ascent to (and not a rational comprehension of concepts about) God.

2.) iv.) The Divine Energies and Orthodox Dogma

2.) iv.) a.) How the Divine Energies are Known

The way in which man perceives and knows God is spoken of in the 53^rd hymn of St. Symeon the New Theologian:

“But as far as he was a rational being, capable of noetic theoria, I gave him the ability to see Me, and I placed him by this means to be worthy of the angels. See, be attentive to what I have just told you. Man, being a composite being, saw My creatures with his bodily eyes, but he saw My face, the face of his Creator, with noetic eyes.”^[281]

God’s essence is unknowable in terms of both rational and noetic knowledge, God’s energies are knowable to the noetic faculty but remain unknowable to the rational faculty. Man’s bodily eyes, including his facilities of sense perception and conceptualizing, can only apprehend created realities, not uncreated realities. This distinction is often lost when reading the Scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers in English translation. There are different Greek words that are translated in English as “knowledge”. Often in Scripture and in the Fathers, the word ἐπίγνωσις (epignosis) is used, which in the context of the Bible and the Fathers refers to an experiential kind of knowledge as opposed to γνῶσις (gnosis) which is a more rational and theoretical knowledge. In English translations, both words are usually simply translated as “knowledge”, and the distinction is lost.^[282]

Regarding this distinction between epignosis and gnosis, St. Sophrony of Essex says:

“It is only after long years of these alternating spiritual states, after much wrestling against the passions, reading of the Scriptures and the works of the holy Fathers, and discussions with spiritual guides and other ascetics, that man discovers in himself the light of the knowledge of the ways of the spirit, which comes secretly and unobservedly.^[283] This knowledge, which is called dogmatic consciousness, is the deep-set life of the spirit, having nothing to do with abstract gnosis.”^[284]

Analogy understood in an Orthodox sense is not some abstract approximation or rational apprehension of the divine energies. It is a hierarchical climb of greater created concepts that leads, through a synergistic struggle of asceticism aided by the grace of God, to a transcending of all these concepts and their abandonment for the sake of communion with God through the uncreated and deifying energies. Fr. John Romanides says:

“Since this experience transcends words and concepts, Christ says ‘You cannot bear…’^[285].. That is to say, until now I have taught you with words that have meanings. So you have a conceptual knowledge concerning the mysteries of the glory and rule (vasileia) of God. This conceptual knowledge was conveyed in words, words accompanied by illumination of the nous, so they are comprehensible to human reason because of the illumination of the nous. In this case someone sees why these things are true… When, however, someone is at the stage of illumination he cannot go any further. What lies beyond cannot be taught with words and concepts. So he who has reached this stage cannot ‘bear’ what lies beyond, because what lies beyond, which is the experience of glorification itself, transcends words and concepts.”^[286]

Romanides is not denying analogy when understood in the patristic sense, which we could refer to as an analogy of hierarchy. In this sense, there is no problem with analogy, so long as it doesn’t entail drawing conceptual analogies between created realities and divine realities, as is done in the Scholastic theology of the West. Romanides and those Orthodox who have fallen under Western influence agree that there is no analogy to the essence of God, however the latter believe that there is analogy between the creation and the energies of God, while Romanides denies any analogy with either.

According to Romanides, there is no possibility of making analogies between God and creation due to the utter dissimilarity between the created and the uncreated:

“We have already mentioned the fact that there is no similarity whatsoever between God and creation. And this absence of similarity means that no analogy can be made between the created and the uncreated. Now what is the metaphysical approach to theology?^[287] In order to have metaphysics or ontology in theology, some kind of analogy between the created and the uncreated certainly has to be made.

Western philosophical and theological tradition has two different such analogies or correlations, in contrast with Orthodox theology, where such relations are not drawn. The question is, why not? Most simply; because the Fathers stress that no similarity whatsoever exists between the uncreated and the created, or between God and creation. This also means that no analogy, correlation, or comparison can be made between them. This implies we cannot use created things as a means for knowing the uncreated God or His energy.”^[288]

The relationship that man has to God’s divine energies is worship and ascetical participation. It is knowing God in an experiential sense and not in a rational sense. To say we know the divine energies is only appropriate in an apophatic sense.

St. Gregory Palamas says precisely this, that the saints experience and perceive the divine energies noetically, but they are incapable of saying what they are:

“This light, however, which the Saints see hypostatically and spiritually, as they themselves say, they know through their own experience that it really exists, not merely symbolically, as are the various imaginations, which occur during certain fortuitous circumstances; it is a real light that is immaterial, a divine illumination and a grace that is invisibly seen and unknowingly perceived. But what it is, they do not say that they know.”^[289]

The divine energies surpass all created natures. We participate in them and through cooperation with their power and synergy we perceive the meaning of created things and witness the worship of God that all of creation participates in. By synergy, the energy of our soul (the nous) mingles with God’s energy (grace). This is a way of life and mode of being and not a matter of speculative conceptual analogy. For the man who has become a true theologian through the experience of God, reason has been quieted and submitted to the illumined nous through ascetical struggle in hesychia.^[290]

St. Maximos the Confessor says all things “participate in God in a manner appropriate and proportionate to each”.^[291] We see also that other Fathers speak of creatures all participating in God’s energy according to their own capability.

St. Gregory Palamas likewise speaks of this common participation:

“The one and the same God is, therefore, both incommunicable and communicable; On one hand is super essential essence and, on the other hand, is having an essence creating power and an exemplary and perfecting energy for all to receive and partake.”^[292]

St. Dionysios the Areopagite says all things participate in God in varying degrees:

“And the title ‘One’ implies that It is all things under the form of Unity through the Transcendence of Its single Oneness, and is the Cause of all things without departing from that Unity. For there is nothing in the world without a share in the One and, just as all number participates in unity (and we speak of one couple, one dozen, one half, one third, or one tenth) even so everything and each part of everything participates in the One…There is naught in the world without some participation in the One, Which in Its all-embracing Unity contains beforehand all things, and all things conjointly, combining even opposites under the form of oneness.”^[293]

One of Fr. John’s main goals was to clarify that Western metaphysics, as a philosophy, does not lead one to the knowledge of God; it is only the therapeutic-ascetical participation in the grace of God that provides man with knowledge in the form of communion. Man is led to an experiential, noetic knowledge, epignosis, of God’s energies through this participation. God’s energies remain unknowable on the level of rational-intellectual knowledge or gnosis. God’s essence remains unknowable to both kinds of knowledge. “This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ who you have sent”.^[294] Here, the Apostle John is not speaking of intellectual knowledge about God, he is speaking of participation and communion. He states in his first epistle that “no one has ever seen God”.^[295] It is in this sense, of communion, that we are to understand the patristic tradition when it speaks of “knowing” God in His energies. This type of knowing is a noetic-experiential knowledge and not a rational-conceptual knowledge.

2.) iv.) b.) The Purpose of Dogma

Fr. John Romanides is one with the Holy Fathers in his teaching that the purpose of the created concepts that form dogma is to guide man through the salvific path of purification, illumination, and theosis:

“Since the aim of theology is purification and illumination of the nous, and dogma is the expression of this experience of glorification, dogma is infallible in the Orthodox Church, because it is the expression of the experience of glorification of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers of the Church.”^[296]

“Dogmas are not a permanent state. They are medicines, and the purpose of medicines is to be done away with, once the patient has been cured. When we are cured we no longer need medicines. So dogmas exist as long as we do not see Christ in glory. Once we see Christ in glory, dogma is abolished. What are the dogmas about? They concern Christology and the Holy Trinity. What need is there for words and concepts about the incarnation and the Holy Trinity, when we see Christ as Holy Trinity and incarnation?”^[297]

“The aim of Orthodox dogma is to cure people and to safeguard the framework within which this cure takes place.”^[298]

Far from being meaningless, this view of the place of dogma as a curative pathway to the experience of God is far more meaningful than any sort of philosophical approach to understanding God. Dogma is medical in nature and is ultimately meant to be transcended and rendered obsolete when one attains to the direct experience of God, which is infinitely beyond the created concepts that make up the dogmas. It has been argued that Romanides in his teachings “cancels out any cataphatic knowledge and relativizes the Divine Names”^[299]. There is nothing relative whatsoever about the noetic experience of God. The mistake here is to think that realities which cannot be described in created concepts are therefore not objective. Fr. George Metallinos explains that the dogmas are objective and empirically verified by the fact that they facilitate man’s salvation:

“Thus, some important consequences are understood: first, that authentic Christianity is the transcendence of religion and of the conception of the Church as merely an institution of rules and duties. Furthermore, Orthodoxy cannot be conceived of as an adoption of some principles or truths imposed from above. This is the non-Orthodox version of doctrines (absolute principles, imposed truths). Conceptions and meanings in Orthodoxy are examined through their empirical verification [i.e., whether they lead one through the stages of purification, illumination, and theosis]. The dialectical-intellectual style of thinking about theology, as well as dogmatism, is alien to the authentic Orthodox Tradition.”^[300]

Furthermore, Romanides is clear that the dogmas never become useless or relativized:

“In glorification Holy Scripture, theology and dogma are abolished. This is the purpose of Holy Scripture and dogma. In what sense? They constantly remain for those who tread the path of purification and illumination. They also always remain in the state of glorification. The one who is glorified goes beyond the concepts and words and sees the uncreated reality, which has no similarity at all with them. This does not mean, however, that these words and concepts can be abandoned, because, if someone does not proceed by means of these words and concepts, by means of purification and exertion, he will not reach glorification. That is the problem. These are the indispensable medicines to enable someone to reach glorification.”^[301]

Holy Scripture, theology, and dogma are necessary in order to lead man to theosis and the experiential participatory knowledge of God, but all of these things are abandoned when this is attained. This is intertwined with the patristic teaching that prayer itself, at least that which is in any way linked to words/concepts and anything created, is also abandoned when one attains to theosis. St. Cleopa of Sihastria says:

“Contemplative prayer [theoria] is not even called prayer anymore, it’s called Godly vision! With that Saint Paul was raised up to the third heaven! And he didn’t know whether he was inside or outside of his body.”^[302]

Such a state is also described in The Art of Prayer:

“The state of [theoria] is a captivity of the [nous] and of the entire vision by a spiritual object so overpowering that all outward things are forgotten, and wholly absent from the consciousness. The mind and consciousness become so completely immersed in the object contemplated that it is as though we no longer possess them…[the soul] forgets its outer surroundings, ceases to reason, and only contemplates…In purely contemplative prayer, words and thoughts themselves disappear…The [nous in theoria] sees God, as far as this is possible for man…The way to God is an inner journey accomplished in the [nous] and heart…the sight of the [nous] becomes clear, and the spirit, beholding God clearly, will receive from Him the power to see and drive away everything which could put it to shame before God.”^[303]

St. Peter Damaskos describes the final stage of prayer:

“In it the [nous] is seized during the transport of prayer by a divine longing, and it no longer knows anything at all of this world, as both St. Maximos and St. John of Damaskos confirm.”^[304]

St. Maximos the Confessor says:

“When in the intensity of its love for God the [nous] goes out of itself, then it has no sense of itself or of any created thing. For when it is illumined by the infinite light of God, it becomes insensible to everything made by Him, just as the eye becomes insensible to the stars when the sun rises…For by soaring towards God through this prayer the [nous] rises above the realm of created beings…when the [nous] is ravished through love by divine knowledge and stands outside the realm of created beings, it becomes aware of God’s infinity. ”^[305]

Dogmas are created concepts about God that are the product of divine inspiration. They are, however, transcended and done away with when man attains to the actual experience of God (theosis). It is, however, impossible for man to attain theosis without the dogmas. The saints who are glorified, who have experienced theosis, hold the Holy Scripture, theology, and dogma of the Church as infallible means by which man is led to purification, illumination and theosis. The saints do not instruct people to abandon Scripture, theology, and dogma because doing so will prevent a person from embarking along this curative path of spiritual transformation.

2.) iv.) c.) Cataphatic Theology

A familiarity with the writings of Fr. John Romanides will show clearly that he affirms cataphatic theology whenever it is used by the Fathers. It is used when expressing things about God but cannot describe things of God, an important distinction that is also referred to as the economic-theological distinction. Fr. Georges Florovsky explains:

“The acceptance of the absolute creatureliness and non-self-sufficiency of the world leads to the distinguishing of two kinds of predicates and acts in God. Indeed, at this point we reach the limit of our understanding, all words become, as it were, mute and inexact, receiving an apophatic, prohibitive, not a cataphatic, indicative sense.

…

It must be said that the whole structure of the doctrine of faith encourages these distinctions. In essence, they are already given in the ancient and primary distinction between ‘theology’ and ‘economy.’ From the very beginning of Christian history, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church endeavored to distinguish clearly and sharply those definitions and names which referred to God on the ‘theological’ plane and those used on the ‘economical.’”^[306]

Romanides explains that cataphatic theology is used in the context of the spiritual life and not as an exercise in philosophy, and it is always simultaneously balanced by apophatic theology:

“To be sure, when talking about God for purposes of spiritual guidance, he [the one who has experienced glorification, i.e. theosis] is obliged to use affirmative language. But to make sure that God is never identified with these things, as He is not the same as the concepts that a human mind can comprehend, the affirmatives are also corrected with negations. We have affirmation and negation on every issue, so we say for example, that God is seen invisibly and known without knowledge, and so on.”^[307]

He compares cataphatic theology to scientific documentation; its purpose is to direct the individual towards the experience of that which is written about:

“Every science has its practice as well as its theory. The theory is a classification from the conceptual point of view of the function of the science, and is expressed in concepts and words. The concepts are expressed in words, which are recorded in monographs, books, drawings and calculations, so that they can serve the needs of others as well.

Usually, in order for someone to be able to use these books on a particular science, he has to have instructors. I think it is impossible for someone to become a doctor just by reading books on medicine and surgery. He must join a team of doctors, surgeons and so on, in order to acquire the theory of the science, but also the practice of the science. The same happens in all the sciences.

So a book cannot be the conveyor of science. The book is used sometimes to provide particular ‘reminders’, in order to remind the scientists of the main points of a science and its practice. This connection between scientists, book, live teaching and pupil also exists in the patristic perception of Holy Scripture.”^[308]

Some critics have argued that cataphatic statements must therefore be “useless, meaningless, or relativized”^[309] if they “merely”, like signposts, point one towards God and do not actually describe God. Dogmas that lead man to theosis are hardly useless, meaningless, or relative. Their ultimate purpose is not to facilitate an intellectual understanding of God, but that does not make them useless. There is truly nothing more “useful” than theosis, which is man’s salvation. Dogmas, viewed in this way, are not relative because all heresy (i.e. all dogma that is not Orthodox) does not and cannot lead to theosis. This is something that Romanides constantly affirmed all throughout his writings and lectures.

As has been shown previously from the writings of St. Dionysios, St. Isaac, St. Justin and others, in the experience of theosis even terms like “hypostasis”, “Father”, “Son”, “Spirit”, “essence”, “energy”, etc. are terms appropriately (because of dogmatic decree) used “about” God. It is, however, problematic to say they are “of” God.

Contrary to the viewpoint of certain westernized Orthodox theologians, God’s energies (like God’s essence) are indescribable. St. Gregory of Nyssa explains that words used to speak about God’s energies refer to the effects of God’s energies working within creation and do not describe what the energies themselves are:

“[When] God is spoken of in the Scriptures as gracious, merciful, full of pity, true, good, Lord, Physician, Shepherd, Way, Bread, Fountain, King, Creator, Artificer, Protector, Who is over all and through all, Who is all in all, these and similar titles contain the declaration of the operations of the Divine loving-kindness in the creation. Those then who enquire precisely into the meaning of the term ‘Almighty’ will find that it declares nothing else concerning the Divine power than that operation which controls created things and is indicated by the word ‘Almighty’, stands in a certain relation to something. For as He would not be called a Physician, save on account of the sick, nor merciful and gracious, and the like, save by reason of one who stood in need of grace and mercy, so neither would He be styled Almighty, did not all creation stand in need of one to regulate it and keep it in being.”^[310]

St. John of Damascus similarly says:

“In so far as He is incomprehensible, He is also unnameable. But, since His is the cause of all things and possesses beforehand in Himself the reasons and causes of all, so He can be named after all things – even things which are opposites, such as light and darkness, water and fire – so that we may know that He is not these things in essence, but is super-essential and unnameable. Thus, since He is the cause of all beings, He is named after all things that are caused.”^[311]

St. Gregory the Theologian also speaks of God being beyond the words used in reference to Him, and that these words have to do with the way that God acts and reveals Himself within creation:

“For to use corporeal names when discoursing of the incorporeal is perhaps the part of those who deal despitefully and stone Him; but pardon, I say again to our infirmity, for I do not willingly stone Him; but having no other words to use, we use what we have. You are called the Word, and You are above Word; You are above Light, yet art named Light; You are called Fire not as perceptible to sense, but because You purge light and worthless matter; a Sword, because You sever the worse from the better; a Fan, because You purge the threshing-floor, and blow away all that is light and windy, and lay up in the granary above all that is weighty and full; an Axe, because You cut down the worthless fig-tree, after long patience, because You cut away the roots of wickedness; the Door, because You bring in; the Way, because we go straight; the Sheep, because You are the Sacrifice; the High Priest, because You offer the Body the Son, because You are of the Father.”^[312]

We see here clearly that the conceptual names describe the effects that the energies of God produce within creation, that is, their effects on created things. Names cannot describe God’s energies in and of themselves, divorced from their operation in creation. These concepts are about God, that is to say, about the ways in which God works and reveals Himself within His creation and to His creatures. They do not, nor cannot, actually describe what God is; they cannot speak of God.

This passage from St. Basil the Great is often misunderstood regarding this topic:

“[We] say that we know our God from His operations [in Greek: enérgeia i.e. energies], but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.”^[313]

“We know our God from His operations” could be alternatively translated as “we know our God by His energies”. He does not say “we know God’s energies”; the difference is crucial. We do not rationally know what God’s energies are; we know God by His energies from their effect on creation and especially from their effect on us, or rather our participation in them. We do not know them in a definitional, conceptual, philosophical sense.

St. Gregory of Nyssa says that all our words concerning God denote not His essence but His energies and that He “is knowable only through His energies”.^[314] According to Fr. George Florovsky, St. Gregory is not identifying the words with the energies but explaining that they indicate or “denote” them.^[315] It is a created method, using words, to point to the uncreated activity of the descent and work of God’s energies. By the careful exact wording of the Cappadocian Fathers, the uncreated-created distinction is preserved.

Continuing with St. Basil’s letter, this section has also often been misinterpreted:

“Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated.”^[316]

St. Basil does not say “we know God’s attributes”, but rather that “our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes”, that is, the energies of God. We have previously discussed the crucial distinction between God and our idea of God. Notice also that St. Basil speaks first of worship and not philosophical knowledge. He is not speaking of philosophical or intellectual knowledge of God’s energies but rather experiential knowledge. He is speaking of epignosis (spiritual-experiential knowledge) and not gnosis (intellectual-rational knowledge). While God’s essence remains totally unknowable, both spiritually and rationally, when we hear the common Orthodox doctrine that we know God’s energies, epignosis is the kind of knowledge that is spoken of.

2.) v.) Man in the Image of God

In the book of Genesis, it is said that man was made in the image of God, or alternatively this could also be translated as “according to the image of God”.^[317] The exact meaning of this is often misunderstood; many have interpreted it to mean that there is some kind of analogical relationship between man and God, that similarity between them does actually exist. However, when understood in light of the patristic tradition, the fact that man is made in the image of God does not negate the fact that there is absolute dissimilarity between the uncreated and the created. There is an iconic relationship between God and man, which God has ordered. There are logoi in God which create and providentially direct man into communion with God but this is not the same as analogy of being (analogia entis).

Man being made in the image of God does not mean that there is an analogical-conceptual similarity between man and God, or that man is an approximation of certain attributes of God. Rather, we should understand the image of God in man as being man’s freedom and potential for communion with God and his ascent to deification.

Vladimir Lossky explains:

“The image cannot be objectified, ‘naturalized’, one might say, by being assigned to some part or other of the human being. To be in the image of God, the Fathers maintain, in the last analysis, is to be a personal being, that is to say, a free, responsible being… [God created man] because he wanted to call him to a supreme vocation; deification”.^[318]

“[The image of God] is the ‘heavenly image’, the positive content of the image, which is that communion with God, whereby before the fall man was clothed with the Word and the Holy Spirit… Thus creation in the image and likeness of God implies the idea of participation in the divine Being, of communion with God. That is to say, it presupposes grace… The image of God in man, in so far as it is perfect, is necessarily unknowable, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa; for as it reflects the fullness of its archetype, it must also possess the unknowable character of the divine Being. This is the reason why it is impossible to define what constitutes the divine image in man. We can only conceive it through the idea of participation in the infinite goodness of God… According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, ‘God is, by His very nature, all the good it is possible to conceive; or rather He surpasses in goodness all that it is possible for our minds to understand or grasp… The very perfection of goodness is displayed in the fact that He brought man into being from nothing and showered all that is good on him… Wherein, then, lies the distinction between the Divine and that which resembles it? In this: that the one is uncreated and the other exists through creation.’^[319]Clearly, St. Gregory of Nyssa here means by the image of God the final perfection of man, the state of deification sharing in the divine pleroma, in the fullness of blessings.”^[320]

St. Sophrony of Essex likewise explains that the image of God in man is his potential for deification:

“The created being, by the gift of God’s good pleasure is made a partaker of uncreated, unoriginated Life… Created in the image and likeness of God, man is endowed with the capacity to apprehend deification… to become a god by grace… Man receives deification… Receiving, however, is not a passive state, and deification cannot occur without man’s consent… I have met people who on entering the sphere of the intelligence appropriate to created human nature were astounded by its luminous splendor. But when man is introduced by the action of God into the world of Uncreated Light, there are no words to express his wonder, no words, no sighs to tell of his gratitude.”^[321]

Romanides teaches the same thing:

“The Word is the image of the Father. And since the Word is the image of the Father, Christ as the Word is also the image of the Father. But since there is an interchange of properties (communication idomatum in Latin or apodosis idiomaton in Greek) between the two natures in Christ the incarnate Word Who is also human, the very humanity of Christ is also the image of the Father. Man is not the image of God. Although some people certainly refer to man as the image of God, it is improper to do so. Literally, man is fashioned in the image of God, but he is not the image of God. Although the Bible relates that ‘in the image of God created He him’, precisely what is meant by this verse was fully revealed only in the Incarnation, because from the very beginning human destiny was to become like Christ, to become god by grace, and to attain the state of being ‘in the likeness’. A person actively becomes ‘in the image’ when he becomes like Christ in compassion. So when someone manages to imitate Christ, he also begins to become an image of the Father by grace as he partakes of the glory of Christ. In this way, someone who attains to a state of theosis – in other words, a state of being ‘in the likeness’ of Christ, becomes Christ by grace and god by grace. That is when he becomes like Christ and differs from Christ only in terms of nature. Notwithstanding, Christ is God by nature, not by grace.”^[322]

The teachings of Fr. John Romanides concerning the nature of theology, of man’s ability to know God and to know about God, and the distinctions between rational knowledge about theological concepts and the experiential knowledge which cannot be expressed conceptually, are in perfect agreement with the teachings of the Holy Fathers. Theology is not a system of ideas given by God to be pondered by the rational intellect, rather, it is a divinely inspired framework within which a life of asceticism, worship, and spiritual ascent is carried out.

3.) Orthodoxy and Man’s Neurobiological Restoration

3.) i.) Noetic Prayer as Therapy for the Soul and the Neurobiological System of Man

3.) i.) a.) Circular/Cyclical Prayer and the Link between the Soul and the Body

While the Fathers often spoke of noetic prayer in the context of the healing of man from the sickness of sin, Fr. John Romanides has been criticized as taking this language too far by asserting that noetic prayer also heals man’s neurobiological system. This is one such statement that has aroused criticism:

“In its diseased state, noetic energy does not ‘crank’ cyclically. Instead, unfurled and rooted in the heart, it gets stuck in the brain and causes a short circuit between the brain and the heart. Thus, the concepts of the brain, which all derive from the environment, become concepts of noetic energy, which is at all times rooted in the heart.”^[323]

St. Joseph the Hesychast also speaks of the circular/cyclical nature of noetic prayer. Given the close connection that Fr. John had to St. Joseph, it is likely that he largely got this idea from him:

“There are many ways of praying, and all of them are good, if someone does not know how and prays in simplicity. If, however, someone else is guiding him and he disobeys, he goes astray and becomes deluded. Apart from the circular prayer of the nous, all other prayers may change with time.”^[324]

“If grace becomes active, at once the door is opened and his prayer reaches the gates of heaven and ascends like a pillar or flame of fire. At this moment the change occurs. But if grace does not help and the nous is scattered, then he confines it cyclically in his heart. Then he calms down as if in a nest, and his nous does not wander – as if his heart is a place of confinement for the nous.”^[325]

There is, in general, much confusion about the link between the physical processes of the body and the human soul. A critic of Romanides expressed his concern as follows: “He believes that the process of purification, illumination and deification can be reflected in the future findings of neurobiology… Several times he compares his ‘empirical dogmatics’ or ‘experiential theology’ with medicine and psychiatry.”^[326]

The concept of the spiritual path of purification, illumination, and deification is not unique to Romanides. This is another teaching that he likely received from St. Joseph the Hesychast who explains that “grace is divided into three stages: purifying, illuminating, and perfecting”^[327]:

“The spiritual life is divided into three stages, and grace acts in a person accordingly. The first stage is called purification, during which a person is cleansed…The second form of grace is called the grace of illumination. During this stage one receives the light of knowledge and is raised to the vision of God…The third stage – when grace overshadows – is the grace of perfection, truly a great gift.”^[328]

The terms “experiential theology” or “empirical theology” are not unique to Fr. John Romanides; they are patristic. For example, St. Paisios the Athonite used this terminology:

“Theology is the word of God, which is conceived by pure, humble, spiritually born anew souls; it is not the exquisite words of the mind, which are crafted with eloquent discourse and expressed by the legal or worldly spirit…All those engaged in patristic ascetic discipline become empirical theologians through the visitation of the Grace of the Holy Spirit.”^[329]

St. Justin Popovich speaks of the Orthodox life being empirical, and based in experience, in his analysis of St. Isaac the Syrian’s 52^nd homily:

“In this theanthropic way of life and knowledge, there is nothing that is unreal, abstract, or hypothetical. Here all is real with an irresistible reality, for all is based on experience. In the person of Christ the God-man, transcendent divine reality is shown forth and defined in an utterly empirical way…The more a man exercises himself in the virtues, the greater becomes his knowledge of God. The more he knows God, the greater is his asceticism. This is an empirical and pragmatic path…The knowledge of the truth is not given to the curious but to those who follow the ascetic way…Knowledge comes from asceticism.”^[330]

There is also a series of books entitled “Orthodox Empirical Theologians Series” with over 50 volumes, published by Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery.^[331]

Romanides does not suggest that science can be used to heal man from the sickness of sin and lead him to theosis, but that it could be possible for science to observe the effects of purification and illumination on the brain and neurobiological system. He speculates about this possibility as it relates to the relics of saints:

“There are two general kinds of holy relics, those that exude a perfume and those that are preserved entire or almost entire…The bodies of these are preserved in this way because their noetic energy continues to whirl round in a circular fashion within their hearts in communion with the deifying energy of the Holy Trinity. We would probably be able to see this circular motion with a magnetic scanner.”^[332]

Here Fr. John is attempting to illustrate that there are real and observable effects of holiness, that our faith is real and tangible. As man is both physical and spiritual; noetic prayer affects not only the soul but the body as well. One need not agree with every particularity of the speculations that Romanides makes in this area, but to claim there is no link between body and soul, between the spiritual and material in man, leads to a Gnostic dualism which inherently denies the Incarnation and its consequences. While he may or may not be wrong about this specific point, it is not outlandish or outside of a patristic view of things to suggest that noetic prayer could result in measurable physical effects on the human body.

The link between the spiritual and the physical in man is a common patristic teaching, as well as the teaching that the spiritual faculties of man have connections to physical locations in his body, for example that “the energy of the nous is in the brain, its substance in the heart.”^[333] St. Ignatius Brianchaninov says:

“In reading the Fathers about the place of the heart that the [nous] discovers by prayer, we are to understand the spiritual power of the heart placed by the Creator in the upper part of the heart… the power of the soul is the [nous], and although it is spiritual, yet it has its seat in the brain. So, too, the power of spirituality, or the spirit of man, though spiritual, has its seat in the upper part of the heart that is under the left nipple of the breast, near the nipple and slightly above it… In that section of the heart where the power of spirituality or the spirit resides, there will gradually come to be formed the wonderful, spiritual temple of God… Below the power of spirituality, in the center of the heart, is located the power of jealousy; below it, in the lower part of the heart, is located the power of desire and will… all natural thoughts and feelings, however subtle and disguised by an appearance of righteousness, destroy the union of the [nous] with the heart, and set them in opposition to one another”.^[334]

St. Gregory Palamas speaks about the material bodily locations of faculties of the soul:

“Our soul is a unique reality, yet possessing multiple powers. It uses as an instrument the body, which by nature co-exists with it. But as for that power of the soul we call mind, what instruments does that use in its operations? No one has ever supposed that the mind has its seat in the nails or the eyelids, the nostrils or the lips. Everyone is agreed in locating it within us, but there are differences of opinion as to which inner organ serves the mind as primary instrument. Some place the mind in the brain, as in a kind of acropolis; others hold that its vehicle is the very center of the heart, and that element therein which is purified of the breath of animal soul. We ourselves know exactly that our rational part is not confined within us as in a container, for it is incorporeal, nor is it outside of us, for it is conjoined to us but it is in the heart, as in an instrument. We do not learn this from any man, but from Him who molded man, who showed that ‘it is not what goes into a man that defiles a man, but what goes out by the mouth’, adding ‘for it is from the heart that evil thoughts come’. And the great Macarius says also, ‘The heart directs the entire organism, and when grace gains possession of the heart, it reigns over all the thoughts and all the members; for it is there, in the heart, that the mind and all the thoughts of the soul have their seat.’ Thus our heart is the place of the rational faculty, the first rational organ of the body.”^[335]

St. Sophrony of Essex says:

“The ascetic learns the great mysteries of the Spirit through pure prayer. He descends into his inmost heart, into his natural heart first, and thence into those depths that are no longer of the flesh.”^[336]

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite teaches that the bodily heart is a natural, unnatural, and supranatural center:

“The Essence of the soul is to be found in the heart. The heart is a natural center. Of all the members of the body, it is the heart that is fashioned first. St. Basil said: ‘In the creation of animals the heart is the first to be founded by nature in accordance with the animal that must be analogous to it’^[337]… Thus we can say that the heart, because of the sense itself and the central place where it is found, holds a key position in relation to the whole body… The heart is the seat, the root, the beginning, and the source of all the physical energies of the body… Also the heart is the center of all the natural energies of the soul – thought, reason, and will. Therefore the essence of the soul as the inner form of the body may not be contained as if in a vessel, since it is bodiless; and yet the soul, as in an organ or carriage, is found at the very core of the heart and at the very core of the most sincere and most pure spirit that intercedes between the body and mind… [The heart] is also the organ of desire and the interpreter of passions and emotions.

The heart is also a supernatural center. The supernatural grace of God which we have received through holy baptism is found in the heart – its seat and throne… This is the universal confession of all the Fathers and especially of the neptic Fathers.”^[338]

Fr. John Romanides is in agreement with St. Nikodemos:

“There is the human heart. According to the Hebrews in the Old Testament, that is to say, according to the Prophets and according to the Fathers of the Church, the heart is the spiritual center of man’s life, whereas the mental center is the brain…The noetic faculty, which is supposed to be in man’s heart, but it is not in the heart when it is not functioning correctly.”^[339]

St. Nikodemos also teaches that “the essence and the power of the [nous], that is of the soul, is not found in the brain as an organ. Only the energy of the [nous] is found in the brain.”^[340] Fr. John’s attempt at a reformulation of the hesychastic teaching of praying with your nous in your heart into modern medical language is in no way at odds with Orthodox spiritual teachings. St. Nikodemos continues saying that “even if you acquire no other benefit from this spiritual return of the [nous] into your heart, you will in the very least acquire a knowledge of your sins and your illness. With this knowledge you can be humble and repent before God.”^[341]

The Fathers also speak of the relationship between the passions and the flow and temperature of blood in the body. For example, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov says:

“Physical calmness of the blood is absolutely essential for vigilance, and it is procured in the first place by wise temperance. The blood is set in varied motion by the passions, which in their turn are so varied that they not infrequently oppose one another, and one movement of the blood is often cancelled by others. But all these varied movements of the blood are invariably connected with distraction, day-dreaming and a vast invasion of thoughts and pictures flattering self-love.”^[342]

“Divine zeal is a fire, but it does not heat the blood. It cools it and reduces it to a calm state. The zeal of the carnal mind is always accompanied by heating of the blood, and by an invasion of swarms of thoughts and fancies. The consequences of blind and ignorant zeal, if our neighbor opposes it, are usually displeasure with him, resentment, or vengeance in various forms; while if he submits, our heart is filled with vainglorious self-satisfaction, excitement and an increase of our pride and presumption.”^[343]

It would be of no surprise that if one examined the physical brains of the illumined and glorified and compared them to someone who is not even Orthodox that there could be some noticeable physical difference. The witness of 2000 years of saints testifies to the reality of physical miracles such as incorrupt bodies or the ability of martyrs to withstand horrible tortures unharmed, due to the activity of the grace of God. St. Ignatius of Antioch was found to have “Jesus Christ” written in gold letters on his physical heart.^[344] So, it is not at odds with the experience of the Church to suggest that those who are transformed by the grace of God in soul and body may have similar characteristics that could be observable by science.

3.) i.) b.) Orthodoxy as a Medical Science

The comparison of Orthodoxy to medicine is common all throughout the Fathers, and it goes without saying that the Gospels are themselves full of instances of Christ healing people’s bodily ailments.

Christ is called “The Physician” in much of the hymnography of the Church, and the Church’s prayers often ask for healing of both soul and body:

“For Thou art the enlightenment of our souls and bodies, O Christ God”.^[345]

“Thou wilt cleanse our souls and bodies of all defilement of flesh and spirit, and grant us to stand guiltless and uncondemned before Thy holy altar”.^[346]

“O Physician of souls and bodies, with compunction and contrite hearts we fall down before Thee, and groaning we cry unto Thee”.^[347]

“Jesus, Almighty Physician, heal our souls and bodies”.^[348]

“And send me an angel of peace, a guardian and guide of my soul and body”.^[349]

“Enlighten my mind with the light of understanding of Thy Holy Gospel; my soul with the love of Thy Cross; my heart with the purity of Thy word; my body, with Thy passionless Passion”.^[350]

“May the Eucharist sanctify, enlighten, strengthen and heal my soul and body… Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body… O Lord, Lover of men, Who didst die for us and rise again and bestow upon us these Thy dread and life-giving Mysteries for the well-being and sanctification of our souls and bodies, grant that these may be even to me for the healing of my soul and body… And grant me till my last breath to receive without condemnation the sanctification of the Holy Mysteries for the healing of soul and body”.^[351]

“Grant that these may be even unto me for the healing of both soul and body”.^[352]

“But the Physician of both souls and bodies said unto him: Take up thy bed and walk, and proclaim My might and great mercy unto the ends of the earth”.^[353]

“Thou didst appear in the flesh, healing infirmities, driving away passions, and giving sight to the blind”.^[354]

“Having blamelessly kept the commandments of Christ, O holy Apostles, freely ye received, freely ye give, healing the sufferings of our souls and bodies. Wherefore, since ye have boldness, entreat Him that our souls find mercy”.^[355]

“Thou hast been revealed by God as a physician for those who suffer amid their transgressions, and a destroyer and expeller of evil spirits; wherefore, we call thee blessed”.^[356]

“Through them, O Lord, free us also from the passions of soul and body, in that Thou art the Lover of mankind…^[357] Wherefore, we cry out in hymns to God our Benefactor, Who hath given them to us for the healing of our souls and bodies”.^[358]

“O ye who love Christ, let us piously hymn the memory of the unmercenary one, the valiant spiritual athlete, the faithful healer, that we may receive mercy though, like me, we have defiled our bodily temples; for He granteth healing to soul and body, O beloved. Wherefore, let us strive, O faithful brethren, to have in our hearts the strength of Him Who delivereth from deceit those who cry: Save us, O Lord!”.^[359]

We see medical language even in the Ecumenical Councils, such as Canon 102 of the Council of Trullo, which was ratified by the 7^th Ecumenical Council:

“Those who have received from God authority to bind and to loose must take into consideration the quality of the sin, and the willingness and readiness of the sinner to return, and thus offer a treatment suited to the sin in question, lest by employing an immoderate adjustment in one direction or the other, they fail in compassing the salvation of the one ailing. For, the diseases called sin are not simple affairs, but, on the contrary, various and complex, and they produce many offshoots of the injury, as a result whereof the evil becomes widely diffused, and it progresses until it is checked by the power of the one treating it. So that a person who is professing the science of treating ailments as a spiritual physician ought first to examine the disposition of the sinner, and ascertain whether he tends to health or on the contrary provokes the malady to attack him by his own actions; at the same time bearing in mind that he must provide against any reversion, and considering whether the patient is struggling against the physician, and whether the ulcer of the soul is being aggravated by the application of the remedy; and accordingly to mete out mercy in due proportion to the merits of the case. For all that matters to God and to the person undertaking pastoral leadership consists in the recovery of the straying sheep, and in healing the one wounded by the serpent. Accordingly, he ought not to drive the patient to the verge of despair, nor give him rein to dissoluteness and contempt of life, but, on the contrary, in at least one way at any rate, either by resorting to extremer and stringent remedies, or to gentler and milder ones, to curb the disease, and to put up a fight to heal the ulcer for the one tasting the fruits of repentance, and wisely helping him on the way to the splendid rehabilitation to which the man is being invited. We must therefore be versed in both, i.e., both the requirements of accuracy and the requirements of custom. In the case of those who are obstinately opposed to extremities, we must follow the formula handed down to us, just as sacred Basil teaches us outright.”^[360]

St. Maximos the Confessor teaches:

“Sometimes men are tested by pleasure, sometimes by distress or by physical suffering. By means of His prescriptions the Physician of souls administers the remedy according to the cause of the passions lying hidden in the soul.”^[361]

In The Ladder of Divine Ascent, a central text of Orthodox spirituality, St. John Climacus makes frequent use of medical language:

“A physician is he who suffers from no carnal or spiritual malady, and has no need of any remedy from other men… Acquire, O wondrous man, plasters, potions, razors, eye salves, sponges, instruments for blood-letting and cauterizations, ointments, sleeping draughts, a knife, bandages, and freedom from nausea… A plaster is a cure for visible, that is, bodily passions. A potion is a cure for inner passions… a razor is a trenchant dishonor which purifies the soul… an eye salve is a caustic chastisement which speedily brings healing… a blood-letting instrument is a quick draining of unseen stench… a cauterization is a penalty and a penance… on ointment is assuagement, by words or some small consolation… [St. John continues with various other examples]”^[362]

Here St. John refers to bloodletting as a metaphor for certain forms of spiritual guidance. Bloodletting was a common medical practice in his day but is now understood to be pseudoscience. So, we see clearly that St. John was not divinely enlightened in matters of the material sciences. St. John was speaking in the medical language of his time and from a scientific point of view could have made errors in the realm of the material sciences, since The Ladder of Divine Ascent is not focused on this area. Fr. John Romanides simply followed the example of St. John and many other Fathers and made an attempt to formulate truths of the spiritual life in modern medical terminology. And he, like St. John, may get some things wrong from a scientific point of view, but this does not negate the truth of the teachings.

3.) i.) c.) Spinal Fluid, Blood, and Noetic Prayer in Light of Contemporary Neurobiology

There has been much criticism and confusion surrounding this statement from Fr. John Romanides:

“The second center of the human personality in the heart which circulates blood, the other center being the brain or the intellect which is part of the spinal cord system which circulates spinal fluid. It is the heart which needs cure by its purification and illumination to be consummated in the glorification of the whole person… The short circuit which exists between the heart which pumps blood and the spinal cord which circulates spinal fluid is repaired by the ceaseless prayer in the heart.”^[363]

Fr. John’s utilization of 20^th century medical terminology and practices in order to communicate realities of the spiritual life is fundamentally no different from St. John Climacus doing the same in the 7^th century. He simply made comparisons to more contemporary medicine, reformulating patristic ideas in language more familiar to his audience, as has been done by the Fathers in every historical period. This is also not fundamentally any different from the Greek Fathers utilizing pagan Greek philosophical terminology in order to articulate theological truths.

While this does not prove or disprove anything, it is worth noting that Fr. John’s discussion of the impact of noetic prayer on man’s neurobiological system has not, to our knowledge, been dismissed by any contemporary saints or elders who have noetic prayer, nor by anyone in fields related to neurobiology who are also familiar with the teachings of the neptic Fathers.

We are, in fact, aware of the example of St. Cleopa of Sihastria also saying something quite similar:

“When the [nous] has descended into the heart, the first sign is a nail of fire in the left nipple, where the heart is, for both man and woman. A nail of fire. The heart warms up strongly! A Godly sweetness begins. From the heart, in the chest, the spinal cord, the entire body is fire!”^[364]

Fr. John’s approach to this topic may seem odd, and it is certainly somewhat (although not entirely) unique. This is, however, not surprising since most saints and elders of recent times were not overly familiar with modern neurobiology.

While our purpose here is not to confirm with certainty whether these explanations of Fr. John are reliable, the following claims made in the field of neuroscience appear to suggest that Fr. John’s explanations may not be as far-fetched as some might think, and the reader can refer to the studies cited in the footnotes if they wish to more deeply examine the science:

1. The heart has a form of memory and this memory connects to the brain.^[365]^,^[366]

2. An unhealthy condition of spinal fluid or CSF can positively or negatively influence the transmission of neuronal information.^[367]^,^[368]

3. The stability of this connection affects the health of the whole brain, heart and nervous system (including its neurons).^[369]^,^[370]

4. The influence of stress levels on CSF composition can lead to anxiety and stress disorders and CSF plays an important role in behavioral and neuropsychological changes.^[371]

In discussing noetic prayer in the context of neurobiology, Fr. John often referred to contemporary discoveries of neurologists, neurosurgeons, gerontologists, and even some cardiologists. Gerontologists, for instance, insisted that the only provable physiological cause of death are the glands, which are part of the neuroendocrine system. However, the goals of gerontologists and the Church are not the same. Gerontologists aim at “fixing” the problem by extending biological life through science, thereby perpetuating man’s fallen state rather than curing man of his fallen state eternally.

Fr. John says the following:

“Now in gerontology, in the last twelve years or so in which this science has developed, they have been studying old age and death, to see whether they are natural occurrences or illnesses. As far as old age is concerned, they have reached the conclusion that it is a matter of illness. As regards death, they are not sure whether it is an illness or whether it is natural. Old age is clearly not a natural phenomenon. This can be concluded from the fact that the glands seem to control man’s old age. No renewal of cells takes place there. All the other cells are renewed and change periodically, including cells in the blood. Everything changes and is completely renewed…the glands, however, become impaired.

These experiments have convinced them that old age is a sickness affecting the glandular system. One of these glands is the human brain, part of the neurological system. So what the Fathers were continually saying about death and old age being a sickness has already been proved and has been accepted, whereas in earlier times they might read one of the Fathers of the Church who said that these things were a sickness, but everyone else used to say that it was a natural state. It has now been proved that old age is not a natural state.”^[372]

Since the purpose of noetic prayer, according to Fr. John, is to activate the nous in the heart, the healing of the “short circuit” between the heart and the brain implies that the cardiovascular system has the primary role in the physical contribution to the spiritual life, while the neuroendocrine system is the locus of mortality and corruptibility. When the short circuit is healed, in synergy with divine grace, then this has effects in the body. The fact that, within the fallen world, the failure of the glands causes physical death, and this physical part of man is linked with the nous, possibly all ties together into the mystery of the Fall itself. We cannot actually reverse the Fall and achieve physical immortality on earth, but these insights of modern science do point to the fundamental psychosomatic sickness of death and that death is in fact a sickness and not the natural state of man.

One does not have to accept and agree with Fr. John’s hypothesizing (if we may call it that) regarding the effect that noetic prayer has on, and its connection to, man’s neurobiological system. However, due to the lofty spiritual presuppositions and the advanced neurobiological understanding involved in such formulations, unless one is knowledgeable about both noetic prayer and neurobiology, Fr. John’s explanations should not be so easily dismissed. We should not be so quick to label his explanations as ridiculous or “quackery”^[373], as many have, when we ourselves are inexperienced in the relevant spiritual realities and uneducated in the relevant scientific material that this area explores.

3.) ii.) The Sickness of Religion and Man’s Relationship with God

3.) ii.) a.) Man’s Relationship with God

Some critics have taken issue with this quote from Fr. John Romanides, going so far as to label it as “some of the most ridiculous and heretical statements one can imagine”^[374]:

“But in Patristic tradition, God is not a personal God. In fact, God is not even God. God does not correspond to anything we can conceive or would be able to conceive.”^[375]

When the entire context of what Fr. John is speaking about in this quote is examined, it becomes clear that he is in total agreement with the Fathers. St. Maximos the Confessor says of God that “no specific category can positively be predicated.”^[376] Vladimir Lossky, citing St. Gregory of Nyssa, affirms this very same idea:

“In regard to the names which we apply to God, these reveal His energies which descend to us, yet do not draw us closer to his essence, which is inaccessible. For St. Gregory of Nyssa, every concept relative to God is a simulacrum, a false likeness, an idol. The concepts, which we form in accordance with the judgement and understanding which are natural to us, basing ourselves on an intelligible representation, create idols of God instead of revealing to us God Himself. There is only one name by which the divine nature can be expressed: the wonder which seizes the soul when it thinks of God.”^[377]

Understood in context, when Romanides says “God is not even God”, by the first “God” he means the true, living God that actually exists. By the second “God”, he means the Augustinian, Western, philosophical, and personal (that is, ideas stemming from the philosophy of personalism) conceptions about God that were popular in his day. He is saying that experiential knowledge of God is beyond conceptual knowledge of God; the word “God” is a concept and only points to God while being incapable of defining Him. Fr. John is merely echoing the Fathers: that God is not to be ultimately identified with the linguistic symbols and concepts that are used to speak about Him.

Continuing on, this statement from Romanides has also aroused some confusion:

“The relationship between God and man is not a personal relationship and it is also not a subject-object relationship. So when we speak about a personal relationship between God and man, we are making a mistake. That kind of relationship between God and human beings does not exist. What we are talking about now has bearing on another error that some people make when they speak about a communion of persons and try to develop a theology based on a communion of persons using the relations between the Persons in the Trinity as a model. The relations between God and man are not like the relations between fellow human beings. Why? Because we are not on the same level or in the same business with God.”^[378]

Romanides is rejecting the philosophy of personalism, promoted perhaps most notably by Fr. John Meyendorff. In personalism, the human person is the locus or center of the universe of experience and this defines reality. God is understood in reference to human personhood and relationships. However, in patristic theology, personhood is Christological, not anthropomorphic. One of the major problems that Romanides had with personalism is that it regards man’s own personhood as being analogous to the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Andrew Sopko explains the issues that Romanides criticized in personalism:

“[The proponents of personalism were] tempted to look to Trinitarian theology as an inspiration for such an anthropological doctrine. But, as we have already seen from Romanides’ perspective, the analogia entis has no basis in Orthodox Tradition…Nonetheless, the Traditional disavowal of such an analogy of being has not stopped other Orthodox theologians…from speculating about divine personalism, something unknown in patristic Tradition…For Meyendorff… participation by humanity in divine life is personalistic…[However, according to the Patristic Tradition] only divine/human synergy, the cooperation of divine and human energies, can explain participation in divine life…[In Personalism,] the preference for hypostasis…and the exclusion of energy or action as the medium of communion strikes a less than Traditional note…Personalism has the potential to become as much a pseudomorphosis for Orthodox Tradition as was scholastic essentialism. Actually, both share a surprising similarity, since divine energy has somehow been identified with hypostasis in personalism and with the divine essence in scholastic essentialism. Whether within the internal life of the Holy Trinity or between the Trinity and humanity, communion never occurs person to person but only by energy. Nonetheless, personalism has attempted to make not only human persons analogous to divine persons, but has also tried to make ecclesial community analogous to the Trinity. Of course, both analogies circumvent divine energy, while that concerning humanity relegates the therapeutic regimen of purification, illumination, and glorification which truly enables humans to become the image and likeness of God, to an incidental role if even this.”^[379]

Romanides does not reject that man has a relationship with God, nor does he reject the doctrine of the Persons (Hypostases) of the Holy Trinity. Rather, he is rejecting a particular view of God that downplays the participation in His energies as the locus of divinized life in the Church, and that draws analogies between human personality and the Persons of the Trinity.

Immediately following the section from Patristic Theology that has drawn criticism, Romanides explains how man’s relationship with God changes with the Incarnation, and becomes personal:

“What we have said holds true until the Incarnation. However, after the Incarnation of God the Word, we can have a personal relationship with God by means of and on account of the Incarnation. But this relationship is with God as the God-man…Since God became man, the Incarnation brought about a special relationship that is nevertheless non-existent when we consider the Holy Trinity as a whole. We do not have a relationship with the Holy Trinity or with the uncreated Divinity that is like our relationship with Christ. In other words, our relationship with the Father or with the Holy Spirit is not like our relationship with Christ. Only with Christ do we have a personal relationship. The Holy Trinity came into personal contact with man only through the Incarnation, because we did not have a relationship with God as we do with other people before the Incarnation.”^[380]

Romanides does not say that man has no relationship with God prior to the Incarnation, but rather that it cannot be properly called a personal relationship because that would entail drawing analogies between the relationships that human persons have with one another and the relationship that the Holy Trinity has with man. That, however, changes in the relationship between man and the God-man.

3.) ii.) b.) The Sickness of Religion

Some misunderstandings have arisen in response to Fr. John Romanides stating that “Religion is a neurobiological sickness”^[381], namely that he was referring to Orthodox Christianity itself as some kind of mental illness. Romanides defines “religion” as man-made superstitions that are not from God’s revelation. Orthodoxy, according to his terminology, is not a religion, and he was not alone in speaking this way. Many others employed this definition of religion as well.

Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica says:

“One cannot say that Christianity is a religion. Christianity is a revelation of eternity and life. The angels rejoice greatly because God has revealed Himself mystically to His creature, man. Our human nature has become part of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and that is a great gift which we do not even appreciate; instead, we have cleaved to the things of this world. We have been given the opportunity to prepare ourselves for eternity, to vanquish evil, and to always be with our Heavenly Father.”^[382]

St. Justin Popovich speaks of Orthodoxy not as a religion but a living communion with Christ:

“Orthodoxy is nothing other than the Personality of the God-man Christ extended across all ages, extended as the Church… To be Orthodox means to have the God-man constantly in your soul, to live in Him, think in Him, feel in Him, act in Him. In other words, to be Orthodox means to be a Christ-bearer and a Spirit-bearer… The God-man is not just the fundamental truth of Orthodoxy, but the power and omnipotence as well… the purpose of man is to fill himself with the God-man… to become omnipotent.”^[383]

Elder Athanasios Mitilinaios defines “religion” in the same way that Romanides does:

“Christianity is not simply a religion, but a kingdom. This is the essence of Christianity. Christians are kings and priests. If one would ask you, ‘What is Christianity?’ you should answer, ‘it is a kingdom’…How can we compare it to man-made religions? Christianity is not a religion dreamed up by men. It is a revelation, and therefore a kingdom.”^[384]

“Christianity is not a religion in which man worships the divine for expiation or to have some petition satisfied and some needs fulfilled, without necessarily taking part in God’s life.”^[385]

Fr. Georges Florovsky says:

“Strictly speaking Revelation is not the fundamental essence of every religious life. Even more, we have a right to say that Revelation is, in general, not religion, but it is greater than religion. It is something different, something apart from religion. It is not the manifestation of God in his creation, in the beings created by Him, but a direct vision of God granted to man. God is manifested in all and always. Here we stand before a certain continuity, the continuity of Divine Omnipresence of Him ‘who is omnipotent and omnipresent.’”^[386]

This statement from Romanides has aroused accusations of dogmatic relativism when, in fact, Romanides is saying the opposite:

“The very core of the Biblical tradition is that religion is a specific sickness with a specific cure. This is what the claim ‘there is no God except Yahweh’ means.”^[387]

The phrase “there is no God except Yahweh” is not the sickness of religion; it is a response to the sickness of religion. Romanides, as well as many saints and respected ecclesiastical figures, defined religion as man-made ideas about God that are not from divine revelation. He does not consider Orthodoxy to be a religion, but speaks of it as man’s participation in the uncreated life of God. What the phrase “there is no God except Yahweh” means is that all man-made religions are fatally false and only Orthodoxy provides man with spiritual transformation and access to the one true God. For Romanides, to say that Orthodoxy is a religion is to imply that it belongs in the same category as other religions; he affirmed that only Orthodoxy can cure man of his spiritual sickness and lead him to theosis.

Romanides says only a few paragraphs later:

“In John 17, Christ prays for the cure of the glorification of His disciples and their disciples, not for divided Churches — indeed not for traditions which have not the slightest idea what the cure of glorification is.”^[388]

There is a section in Patristic Theology called “Is Orthodoxy a Religion?” where Romanides answers this question with a resounding no:

“Many are of the opinion that Orthodoxy is just one religion among many… every subject which concerns Orthodoxy finds its proper place on a firm foundation. And this core is purification, illumination, and theosis… The Church’s task is to proclaim to mankind that the true God exists, that He reveals Himself as Light or as a devouring fire, and that all of humanity will see God at the Second Coming of Christ.^[389] Having proclaimed these truths, the Church then tries to prepare Her members so that on that day they will see God as Light, and not as fire… She is essentially offering them a curative course of treatment… this curative course of treatment is the very fiber of Orthodox tradition and the primary concern of the Orthodox Church.”^[390]

Romanides also discusses in this section the kind of empty, purely external religiousness that knows nothing of this curative course of treatment. This is what he is speaking of when he uses the word “religion”. One could be Orthodox outwardly and formally adopt the teachings, practices, and liturgical life of the Orthodox Church but fail to be cured of the passions if one is approaching Orthodoxy as a religion and not as a therapeutic method revealed by God for man’s purification, illumination and theosis.

4.) Various False Accusations

4.) i.) Nominalism

Certain critics have leveled the accusation that Romanides was a nominalist.^[391] Nominalism was a philosophical system devised by the English Franciscan friar William of Ockham in the Middle Ages. This accusation is based on the following statement:

“On account of William Ockham, a tradition was created that did not accept the analogy of being, between the created and the uncreated. He maintained that we cannot trace any knowledge of God through philosophy. He had launched a general attack against Plato’s archetypes; in other words, against the Universalia of Platonic tradition, with very powerful arguments and almost abolished the preceding Platonic supporters of Western tradition, thus instigating a severe crisis in Western Theology. To Orthodox tradition, this is of extreme importance, since Plato’s and Neo-Platonists’ teachings on archetypes were officially condemned by the Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox Synodikon that we cite on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, there is an official condemnation of this teaching of Plato and Neoplatonists and an anathema is now officially pronounced by the Orthodox Church, on those who confess this Platonic teaching of archetypes. The reason for this is that the Platonic perception of God is clearly anthropomorphic.”^[392]

There is commonality in teaching between Romanides and certain points made by William of Ockham; not everything that he taught. Fr. John agrees with Ockham’s rejection of the Platonic-Scholastic tradition that had developed in the West as well as his teaching that “philosophy is incapable of helping us discover knowledge about God.”^[393] Platonism is condemned in the 7^th Ecumenical Council,^[394] so there is certainly nothing wrong with agreeing with Ockham on this point. However, there is much from Ockham that Romanides did not agree with, namely “that knowledge of God is possible only by means of Holy Scripture.”^[395] Romanides also rejects Ockham’s teaching of the “analogy of faith”, which is the idea that an analogy is made between God and creation, with the caveat that this analogy is derived solely from Holy Scripture and not philosophy. Fr. John is in agreement with Ockham that God cannot be known through analogies derived from rational philosophical speculation. He, however, disagreed with Ockham that analogy could be derived from Holy Scripture.

Romanides, departing from Ockham, says that “the Bible is a guide to God, but the description of God in the Bible does not bear any similarity to God.”^[396] This is totally at odds with Ockham’s “analogy of faith”. This section in Patristic Theology is part of a wider discussion of the philosophical developments in the West and Romanides mentions this as a significant part of it, and that it bears similarities to the Orthodox condemnation of Platonism in the Synodikon.

The quote from Patristic Theology that is used by critics as proof of Fr. John being “an admitted nominalist”^[397] is immediately followed (in fact, on the same page) by a critique of certain aspects of nominalism:

“William of Ockham did not reject the analogy of faith, which he understood as Holy Scripture. For him the Bible describes what pertains to God as it really is. He also taught that knowledge of God is possible only by means of Holy Scripture. In the analogy of faith, an analogy is made between God and creation, but this analogy is not derived from philosophical speculation (as in the case of the analogy of being), but from God’s revelation to mankind that is recorded in the Bible. The analogy of faith means that in the Bible, God reveals his attributes to us and that we cannot truly know these divine attributes from philosophy. Of course at this point, Ockham directed his attack against Augustine’s philosophical method in general, but not against the analogy of faith or his philosophical method that relies on Holy Scripture…Now the Orthodox tradition does not even accept an analogy of faith, because you cannot make an analogy by faith between teachings in the Bible and the truth about God. Why not? Because there’s absolutely no similarity between God and creation. This is the reason why biblical concepts about God are concepts that can be set aside and are set aside during the experience of theosis. Before theosis, these concepts are clearly helpful, necessary, correct, and right, but only as guideposts towards God. The Bible is a guide to God, but the description of God in the Bible does not bear any similarity to God. Holy Scripture talks about God; it talks about the truth, but it is not the truth. It is a guide to the truth and the way who is Christ. The words in the Bible are simply symbols that contain certain concepts. These concepts lead us to God and direct us to Christ, but they are no more than thoroughly human concepts.”^[398]

As we read in Part 2, St. Justin Popovich makes this same point; that the knowledge acquired from concepts is set aside when one arrives at direct knowledge of God:

“Knowledge is the level from which a man rises up to the heights of faith. When he reaches these heights, he has no more need of it, for it is written: “we know in part but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away^[399]”.^[400]

Whether one agrees with Fr. John Romanides on his assessment of what Ockham did and did not get right, it is not accurate to simply label Fr. John as a nominalist.

4.) ii.) Marxism

Another accusation that has become common, particularly online, is that Fr. John Romanides was “an admitted Marxist”^[401], or that he promoted Marxism to some extent. This accusation is based on the following words from Fr. John:

“At that time, all religious people were followers of metaphysics — and have been so even until recently — whereas all empiricists were agnostics, and some of them atheists. Why? Because the essence of the empirical approach is not even philosophy. Certainly, it is presented as empirical philosophy, as the philosophy of empiricists. They prevailed over the metaphysicians in America and accomplished a great deed for Orthodoxy. They were, however, devastating for Modern Greek theology.

Nowadays, in Greece, all Marxists are empiricists, without being aware of it, of course. This is because Greek Marxist ideologists do not know what the family tree of Marxism is, as do their counterparts in Europe and America; for, here, they have merely learned their lessons mechanically, by rote, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I believe that it is a great tragedy — not an Aeschylean one, but a shameful one — that there are no powerful intellectual Marxists in Greece. Of course, this is fortunate for the police and right-wingers, as well as for Modern Greek theologians, but it is unfortunate for the search for truth. For Marxism started out on empirical bases and ended up where it has ended up.

The foundation of Marxism and the foundation of Patristic Theology, from a scientific point of view, are the same; thus, between the two of them, the Marxists and the Patristic theologians could have come to an understanding.”^[402]

Here Fr. John is simply pointing out that the empirical focus of materialistic Marxism has greater similarity to the Orthodox therapeutic methodology than the metaphysics of the Enlightenment. In the cases of Marxism and nominalism alike, Romanides simply points out one single area where these ideologies are correct or insightful; it does not follow that he accepts them in their totality.

Several instances from his life make it highly unlikely that Fr. John could have been a Marxist or that he held Marxist sympathies. He gave a speech in Boston in 1964 where he analyzed the dangers that communism posed to the United States.^[403]When he was living in Greece in the 1970s, he was approached by the supporters of the monarchy to become a candidate for their political party, something that would have been totally impossible had he been an admitted Marxist.^[404]

The following statement proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Fr. John was not a follower of Marxism:

“The founders of Communism, Marx and Engels… developed an abstract philosophy regarding the evolution of economics and class distinctions, which is neither correct nor is it possible to be applied as an interpretive key to the history of all peoples, as they think… Marxists brought to Greece their arsenal of trivial arguments and began their siege of Romiosini.”^[405]

By “Romiosini” Fr. John is referring here to a conception of Roman Orthodox identity, the worldview of the Orthodox Roman Empire, which was a major focus of his writings. He was deeply committed to the heritage of Roman Orthodoxy, and if he believed Marxism to be working against it, it would be unthinkable for him to be a Marxist. An admitted Marxist would certainly not refer to Marxist ideology as “trivial arguments.”

Fr. John, like St. Paul^[406] and many of the Church Fathers,^[407] looked behind all philosophies to find a seed of truth which could lead others towards God.

Fr. John would not be able to persuade any academic that Orthodoxy was superior to religion and had a real cure unless he could articulate it in the categories that academics understood. He argues that certain ideas within Orthodoxy have similarities with other religions, but that other religions as a whole are superstitions. Many academics around Fr. John, even Orthodox “theologians”, considered Holy Orthodoxy to be a religion that was lumped in with all other religions, with differences that could be classified in the same way as false religions would be compared and differentiated from one another. In an attempt to convince some of these scholars that Orthodoxy was different, Fr. John took a different approach. The goal of Orthodoxy is the cure of man’s ailments and his ascension to theosis, a goal that is attainable and necessary in this world. It has the method of truly communing with the universe’s Creator (i.e. through purification, illumination, and deification), and this brings real light and fire upon the earth. Fr. John then explains the superstition of other religions (including the descent of Western heterodoxy into superstition) and how modern psychology destroyed such notions for many people and society in general.

Fr. John understood that anyone who looks at religion and philosophy will notice that they are built either on an empirical observation of the world or upon a metaphysical speculation of conceptual ideals. His view was that the Marxists in Greece were ignorant of the roots of Marxism and its deeper problems. He believed that there was an evangelical “foot in the door” that could be utilized to convert Greek Marxists, since their concerns about the broken human condition are solved within the therapeutic life found in Orthodoxy.

Immediately after the above words from Fr. John, he discusses the clash of Marxism with religion, and he contrasts all of this with how the Roman Empire understood religion and was able to join it more appropriately with the state in a way that healed the citizens of the Empire. It is clear from Fr. John’s writings that he does not consider himself a Marxist but regrets that the Church did not have success in communicating with them in a positive direction.

Like his analysis of Ockham, Fr. John behaved as a bee taking the nectar, even from dying and wilted flowers, and working with it to make honey, that is, a sweet sustenance for the souls of his fellow men. St. Paisios the Athonite would have agreed with such an approach:

“As I have come to understand, some people resemble the honeybee and some resemble the fly. Those who resemble the fly seek to find evil in every circumstance and are preoccupied with it; they see no good anywhere. But those who resemble the honeybee only see the good in everything they see. The stupid person thinks stupidly and takes everything in the wrong way, whereas the person who has good thoughts, no matter what he sees, no matter what you tell him, maintains a positive and good thought.”^[408]

In fact, St. Paisios, just like Fr. John, spoke positively about the particular points of Marxism that had similarities to Christian ideals:

“Personally, if the communists weren’t atheists, if they didn’t hunt Christ, I would agree with them. It’s good for the plots of land, the factories, to belong to everyone…not for one to be hungry while someone else is throwing away food. If material goods are not distributed with the Gospel, in the end they will be distributed with the knife.”^[409]

Romanides spoke positively about certain aspects of Marxism due to its emphasis on empiricism and its rejection of metaphysics, which he believed to be closer to the approach of Orthodox spiritual life:

“What distinguishes empiricists from metaphysicists is a fundamental difference in approach – observation is the core of empiricism, while philosophical reflection is the core of metaphysics.”^[410]

As has been previously discussed, the source of Orthodox theology is empirical experience of the revelation of God. Romanides points out that in this sense, one could say that atheistic empiricism is at its root more similar to Orthodoxy than the metaphysics of Western heterodoxy, although it is an empiricism purely in the created realm that is focused on material, worldly outcomes. This is what he means when he says, “from a scholarly point of view, Marxism and Patristic theology share the same foundation.”^[411] He is in actual fact criticizing the shallow perspective that mere scholarly analysis bereft of divine enlightenment provides.

Fr. John then points out the external, superficial similarities between Orthodoxy and Marxism and shows the crucial difference and ultimate opposition between them:

“Marx and Lenin agree with this point – people first need to experience an inward change and transformation in order to ensure the success of the coenobitic way of life or, for the communists, the communist way of life. So if sociologists would examine communism and Orthodox coenobitic monasticism in terms of the external structure of their societies, they would not detect any difference… But Orthodox monasticism has at its core an ascetic course of treatment…When it comes to questions of ideology, Orthodox Christians are primarily concerned about whether the Church has the freedom to carry out Her work, which is to heal the sick in Her care… So if an ideology hinders the Church from carrying out Her work, it is immaterial as far as the Church is concerned whether it is called ‘atheistic Marxism’ or ‘right-wing Masonry’. For the Church, they are both the same – hostile forces from whom She is equally obligated to defend Herself.”^[412]

Romanides could hardly be called a Marxist if he considered it to be a hostile force towards the Church. He simply acknowledged that aspects of Marxism had some superficial similarities to Orthodoxy on an external, theoretical level and that these similarities could serve as tools for the purpose of evangelism.

4.) iii.) Ecumenism

Some critics have leveled the accusation that Romanides was an ecumenist,^[413] and that he sought to “subvert, promote ecumenism and the relativization of Orthodoxy”^[414] and that “the ecumenical project is the goal”^[415] underlying his theological writings.

Ecumenism can be defined as the belief that the Body of Christ is not exclusively the canonical Orthodox Church; that His Body, the Church, exists amongst other Christian sects, that the various dogmatic disagreements are inconsequential, and that non-Orthodox groups have real Mysteries (sacraments) like baptism, the priesthood, the Eucharist, and so forth. It is indeed the “pan-heresy”, according to St. Justin Popovich:

“Ecumenism is the common name for the pseudo-Christianity of the pseudo-Churches of Western Europe…Their common evangelical name is: Pan-heresy. Why? This is because through the course of history various heresies denied or deformed certain aspects of the God-man and Lord Jesus Christ”.^[416]

St. Ephraim of Katounakia said that God revealed to him the true nature of Ecumenism:

“I went to my cell and prayed, asking Christ to inform me what Ecumenism is. I received His reply, which was that Ecumenism has a spirit of wickedness and is dominated by unclean spirits.”^[417]

Fr. John participated in ecumenical dialogues; however, he was often a thorn in the side of the ecumenically-minded Orthodox who wanted to make agreements with the heterodox. One can find a brief account of Fr. John’s life and some details of his participation in the ecumenical movement in the first chapter of Empirical Dogmatics Volume 1 by Metropolitan Heirotheos of Nafpaktos. Fr. John’s own words will show that he was certainly not an ecumenist:

“There is no salvation outside the Church. Christ offers saving grace to everyone. When someone is saved outside the visible Church, this means that Christ Himself saves him. If he is a non-Orthodox member, he is saved because Christ saves him; the ‘offshoot’ to which he belongs does not save him. His salvation is not accomplished by the ‘Church-offshoot’ to which he belongs, because the Church that saves is one, that is, Christ.”^[418]

“In the Middle Ages rulers knew very well indeed what the difference was between Orthodoxy and heresy. What is the difference? The difference is extremely simple. There is no therapeutic treatment for man’s nous in heresy. In Orthodoxy, however, man’s nous is cured. In Orthodoxy there is therapy for the human personality, and the saints are the proof.”^[419]

“In the same way as it is impossible for there ever to be unity between an association of sham doctors and the Medical Association, so it is impossible for there ever to be unity between the Orthodox and heretics.”^[420]

“[Heretics] change the tradition on account of rational schemes that they think up. They have more faith in their reason than in the experience of the glorified, so they conceive something with their rational faculty and identify it with the reality concerning God. All the heresies originate from this sort of mistaken basis.”^[421]

The primary purpose of dogma is not to intellectually understand ideas about God. Orthodox dogma leads one through the stages of purification, illumination, and theosis. Fr. John very clearly taught that the many and various heresies do not.

Fr. John refers to the heterodox as “quack doctors”^[422] all throughout his writings and lectures, and explains that heretics are unable to heal man and guide him to salvation:

“[When] the Church faces a heresy, the criterion for it being a heresy is that it overturns the experience of Pentecost, when ‘all truth’ was revealed, and it stops people progressing towards glorification. That is why heresy is dangerous.”^[423]

He also taught that Orthodox Christians cannot pray with heretics, something an ecumenist would never say:

“We see the foolishness of contemporary Orthodox who pray together with the non-Orthodox… we cannot pray together… we pray for heretics but we do not pray with them.”^[424]

The only evidence cited by critics to support the claim that Fr. John was an ecumenist is the fact that he participated in various ecumenical dialogues throughout his life. This was during a time where the malicious intent and nefarious influences behind the whole ecumenical movement were not yet as abundantly clear to those with the eyes to see.

Fr. Seraphim Rose, a bold critic of ecumenism, nevertheless said that simply participating in dialogues does not automatically make someone an ecumenist:

“This brings us to a fundamental question of definition: what is ecumenism? Some would-be zealots of Orthodoxy use the term entirely too imprecise a fashion, as though the very use of the term or contact with an ‘ecumenical’ organization is in itself a ‘heresy’. Such views are clearly exaggerations. ‘Ecumenism’ is a heresy only if it actually involves the denial that Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. A few of the Orthodox leaders of the ecumenical movement have gone this far; but most of the Orthodox leaders of the ecumenical movement have not said this much; and a few (such as the late Fr. Georges Florovsky) have only irritated the Protestants in the ecumenical movement by frequently stating at ecumenical gatherings that Orthodoxy is the Church of Christ.”^[425]

If simply participating in an ecumenical dialogue means that one accepts the pan-heresy of ecumenism, then this would mean that Fr. Georges Florovsky, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, St. Raphael of Brooklyn, St. Nicholas of Japan and others were all ecumenist heretics. St. Mark of Ephesus went to the Council of Florence to discuss matters of faith with the Latins centuries after the Great Schism and knew very well that many of his fellow bishops sought union with the Pope of Rome at all costs, yet at this council St. Mark defended Orthodoxy and has never been considered to be anything like an ecumenist by the Church. Many Orthodox participated in ecumenical dialogues in recent decades out of a (perhaps naïve) hope that the dialogues provided an opportunity to explain Orthodoxy to the non-Orthodox and that some might convert as a result.

Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou describes the nature of Fr. John’s participation in ecumenical dialogues:

“[Fr. John] participated as envoy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in various dialogues with heathens [non-Orthodox] and insisted that the Orthodox Church is One, Holy, and Catholic, and no other.”^[426]

During his participation in ecumenical dialogues, Fr. John would never agree to anything that contradicted Orthodox dogma. Here is one such example:

“On one occasion I saw in the minutes of a sub-committee that our own people, together with an Anglican theologian, supported a statement that Holy Scripture is the revelation and word of God. I wrote a short memorandum… to support, in the dialogue with the Anglicans, my view that Holy Scripture is neither the revelation nor the word of God, but is about the revelation and about the Word of God”.^[427]

Romanides in fact was hated by ecumenists in Greece during his lifetime,^[428] and he was critical of the constitution of the World Council of Churches.^[429] He also strongly opposed the Balamand Declaration, which was a document signed in 1993 by clergy and scholars from the Orthodox Church and from amongst the Roman Catholics. The declaration stated that the two groups are “Sister Churches” and have equally valid sacraments. Fr. John wrote an extensive critique of both the declaration as well as Roman Catholic theology in general, and clearly states he does not believe that they have real Mysteries (sacraments):

“[The] sincerity of the Vatican’s public ‘love’ and ‘dialogue,’ imposed upon it by the modern spread of democracy, is in need of much more substantiation to become convincing… the Orthodox at Balamand accommodated the Latins by joining them in using the context of medieval Franco-Latin propaganda about the schism… The Balamand agreement is also based on an interpretation of our Lord’s prayer in John 17 which is not part of the Patristic tradition… This agreement takes advantage of those naive Orthodox who have been insisting that they are a ‘Sister’ Church of a Vatican ‘Sister’ Church… Vatican II had also set its trap of unilaterally recognizing Orthodox mysteries (sacraments) into which the Balamand Orthodox fell according to plan… It would seem that the Orthodox may legitimately and dutifully wish and hope out of love that Latin and Protestant mysteries are indeed valid and efficacious, but leave the matter in the hands of God. But to pronounce them valid, 1) when the Latins do not accept glorification (theosis) in this life as the central core of apostolic tradition and succession and 2) when they believe instead that happiness is one’s final end, is indeed strange… Franco-Latin official teachings on the mysteries have been historically not only un-Orthodox, but anti-Orthodox… It seems that the Orthodox at Balamand are attempting to introduce an innovation in regards to Biblical mysteries.”^[430]

In his Sickness of Religion essay, Romanides states that “We will know that the last one to be glorified has passed away when human society has passed away. And this last one glorified will probably not have been member of any ‘official’ Church.”^[431] This has been misunderstood by some to mean that he is saying that theosis can be attained outside of the Orthodox Church, that “he relativizes the church”^[432]. Romanides is in fact saying that this saint will probably not be part of an ecumenist “Church” which embraces all religions, or as Fr. Seraphim Rose called it: “the religion of the future.”^[433]Fr. John mentions “official churches”, i.e. legally tolerated religious bodies, which during the time of the Antichrist will whole-heartedly accept the Ecumenical heresy. These “Orthodox” churches will have become apostates from the real Orthodox Church, they will be outside of the Body of Christ. This means the canonical and true Church will not be officially and legally recognized or approved by the worldly government, which will grant favor to a schismatic group of the Orthodox that will succumb to the persecutions. We already see the possibility of this in our own times with certain recent events. Romanides is not saying that saints can exist outside of the Orthodox Church, he was very explicit all throughout his writings and lectures that the process of purification, illumination, and theosis (i.e. that which makes someone a saint) does not and cannot exist outside of the Orthodox Church. An interpretation of this statement as espousing an ecumenist ecclesiology is not consistent with Fr. John’s teachings. This comment on the state of the Church at the time of the Antichrist should also not be misconstrued as justifying any of the multitude of schisms from the Orthodox Church that exist today among those claiming to be “true” or “genuine” Orthodox.

It has also been claimed that Romanides “loved his masonic hierarch Athenagoras”,^[434] who was indeed a known Freemason, and a zealous ecumenist. There is no evidence of this. It is noteworthy that Fr. John’s own mother was a spiritual daughter of St. Paisios the Athonite^[435]who, with many other Athonites, ceased commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras after he “lifted” the anathemas on the Roman Catholics.^[436] When Romanides was in America he was very critical of the spiritual state of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, saying that “the state of our Church here is almost that of a dead man’s last breath… A good and austere monastic life is the only thing that can show us the way out of this miserable state of Orthodoxy in America.”^[437] There was nothing of ethnophyletism in the thought of Romanides; he loved the Greek Orthodox Church but did not shy away from pointing out its problems. The claim that Fr. John believed in the heresy of Ecumenism, as if heretical groups that are not in communion with the Orthodox Church are still somehow part of the Church, the Body of Christ, is simply unfounded.

4.) iv.) Original Sin and Pelagianism

Some have accused Fr. John Romanides of being a Pelagian^[438] due to his criticism of St. Augustine of Hippo’s teachings on original sin, and especially for the below excerpt from one of his theological lectures:

“The All-Holy Virgin had reached glorification at three years of age. A small child is receptive. Its heart has not yet been hardened and it has not become cunning. A child’s fall is due to its surroundings, its parents, its relatives and friends. If a child is in a good environment, that child can grow up without problems, with noetic prayer. The child has less of a problem than adults. It learns more quickly. The environment destroys the child. For that reason, the Fathers stress that everyone is born like Adam and Eve, and everyone goes through the same fall. Darkening of the nous happens to each one. The nous that exists in the embryo is not yet darkened. Each one suffers the fall of Adam and Eve on account of his surroundings.”^[439]

Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos comments further on Fr. John’s words:

“According to the Fathers, inheriting the ancestral sin principally means inheriting the consequences of the Fall, which are corruptibility, liability to suffering, and mortality.”^[440]

Since the lecture that this was taken from has not been translated and published in full, we are not certain whether Fr. John further explained and clarified these comments. Metropolitan Hierotheos compiled the Empirical Dogmatics volumes, and wrote down Fr. John’s words from audio recordings of his lectures. Having listened to the entire lecture that this excerpt is taken from and being his close student, it would be unlikely that Metropolitan Hierotheos is incorrectly interpreting Fr. John’s words here.

Fr. Seraphim Rose with more clarity teaches the exact same thing that Metropolitan Hierotheos understands Fr. John to be saying:

“The tree itself represents the knowledge of evil, since tasting of it meant disobeying the commandment. Adam learned about evil through his disobedience. He chose the way of sin and thereby discovered in bitter experience what it meant to be evil, and then to repent of that evil and come back to goodness. So that is the path that Adam chose; and because of that our whole nature has been changed. Each person is free – the same as Adam – but we have been born in sins already. Even small children are filled with all kinds of evil things. Nonetheless, real evil does not come in until one consciously chooses to be evil. And that is the choice of adulthood. Thus, in a sense everyone tastes of this tree, or else refrains from tasting of it and goes on the path of goodness. Unfortunately, the odds are very much against one’s surviving without falling into these evils, although there’s no reason to fall into them. We see now the evil all around us, and we have instructors and Holy Fathers to keep us on the path of good. A person can be raised in Christianity – like St. Sergius of Radonezh or other saints who were in monasteries from their childhood – and he can be surrounded by good examples. He can see the results of evils in others and can choose not to do that himself. Theoretically, it is quite possible. In bitter practice, however, usually it happens that we taste the tree by sinning ourselves.”^[441]

Fr. John wrote his PhD dissertation on the topic of original sin in 1957 where he provided a detailed presentation of his views on this topic with many citations from the saints and Holy Fathers both before and after St. Augustine. This work, rather than one excerpt from a lecture, is a definitive source of his views on this topic. This dissertation was later published in English with the title The Ancestral Sin.

In the West, the subject of original sin has been shaped by the conflict between St. Augustine and the British monk Pelagius. The canons of the Council of Carthage in the year 419 condemned specific teachings of Pelagius and these canons were adopted by the Council of Trullo (the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council) and the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and were therefore accepted by the whole Church. Pelagius was also condemned by name at the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus in 431. However, the universal condemnation of Pelagius did not entail a universal adoption of all of St. Augustine’s teachings on the subject of original sin, grace, and free will.

The Council of Carthage in 419 condemned Pelagius’ teachings, and its canons were accepted by the whole Church through its ratification at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Canons 120-127 of Carthage, found in The Rudder, summarize several specific teachings for which the Pelagians were condemned.^[442] These canons condemned those who say that Adam was created mortal and would have died even had he not sinned (making God the author of death), those who say that the baptism of infants is a false baptism because they have no personal sins, those who teach that baptism grants remission only of past sins but not does help in avoiding future sins (such that it is up to man’s own will to remain sinless after baptism), those who say the grace of God helps us to avoid sin only by giving us knowledge of good and evil but does not help us in the struggle against sin after baptism, those who claim to have become sinless, those who skip the words “forgive us our debts” in the Lord’s Prayer because they believe themselves to be sinless, and those who claim the saints are sinless while themselves claiming to be sinners only out of humility.

Of the canons from the Council of Carthage in 419 AD, canon 121 comes the closest to defining original sin:

“The little ones, newly born from the wombs of their mothers…[are to be] purified in the bath of [regeneration]^[443]…for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., ‘Sin entered the world through one human being’…^[444] [infants] are as yet incapable of committing any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, [nevertheless they] are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of [regeneration].”^[445]

This canon states that infants are free of the guilt of any personal sin but should nevertheless be baptized. This completely precludes the understanding of original sin held by St. Augustine and the heterodox West that eventually further innovated upon his errors. Other than this canon, the council did not further define original sin, and did not uphold all of St. Augustine’s teachings on the topic.

Regarding the condemnation of Pelagius at the Third Ecumenical Council, Fr. John Romanides cites St. Cyril of Alexandria as representing the position of the council (and therefore the entire Church) on this topic; that it “condemned Pelagianism and emphasized that death is unnatural and grace is of absolute necessity for salvation”:^[446]

“But what can one say? Yes, Adam indeed fell and, having ignored the divine commandment, was condemned to corruptibility and death. But how did many become sinners because of him? What are his missteps to us? How could all of us who were not yet born be condemned together with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sinneth shall be put to death?’ ^[447]Surely, the soul that sins shall die. For we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such a manner as this. He was created for incorruption and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continuously seeing God while his body was tranquil and calm, and all base pleasures were still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But since he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature thus became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not as co-transgressors with Adam, which they never were, but being of his nature, they fell under the law of sin…In Adam, human nature fell ill and became subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in.”^[448]

Fr. John contrasts the teachings of St. Cyril and other Fathers with the teachings that have prevailed in the West primarily due to the influence of St. Augustine. As quoted above, Fr. John explained that the primary consequences of the Fall were “corruptibility, liability to suffering, and mortality.”^[449]St. Cyril of Alexandria confirms this view of the Fall:

“It was for the sake of no one else that the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us since, by enduring the death of the flesh, He would triumph over principalities and powers and indeed abolish him who had the power of death, that is, Satan, lift corruptibility, and with it cast away sin, our tyrant.”^[450]

Romans 5:19 states: “For as through the disobedience of the one man the many were rendered sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many shall be rendered righteous.” St. John Chrysostom interprets it thus:

“What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done?… But if any of you were to enquire with a view to learn, we should give this answer: That we are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation, if we be sober-minded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious (φιλοσοφίας). For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, or rather even before these, it hath introduced other greater blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs come, and the rewards of the Apostles. Thus was Abel justified, thus was Abraham, in having slain his son, thus was John, who for Christ’s sake was taken off, thus were the Three Children, thus was Daniel. For if we be so minded, not death only, but even the devil himself will be unable to hurt us. And besides there is this also to be said, that immortality awaits us, and after having been chastened a little while, we shall enjoy the blessings to come without fear, being as if in a sort of school in the present life, under instruction by means of disease, tribulation, temptations, and poverty, and the other apparent evils, with a view to our becoming fit for the reception of the blessings of the world to come.”^[451]

St. John Chrysostom here speaks of mortality as the consequence of the sin of Adam and says that man only becomes a sinner through his own personal sins and not the sins of others. He also shows how the sentence of death is actually a blessing from the merciful God so that man would not remain in a fallen state eternally.

Likewise, in the 53^rd hymn of St. Symeon the New Theologian, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself states that death is not a juridical punishment, but rather God’s mercy:

“Consequently this death was considered by everyone as having been given as a sentence for an inescapable punishment. But it is not a punishment but rather a benefit. For I did not permit the corruption to be united with the incorruption. For, since man was immortal, to have been eternally bound to evil in both body and soul would have been worse than the soul being separated from the body. For if the soul, having lost life here on earth, would have to bear the corruptible body united with it, how would it not be worse than death, I tell you, worse than the separation of the soul?”^[452]

In harmony with the Council of Carthage, St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instructions explains that infants are born innocent but should be baptized nonetheless:

“Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things!^[453]You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit.”^[454]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Homilies, likewise teaches that man was not born a sinner but rather that we become sinners by sinning of our own free will:

“For it is not according to your nativity [birth] that you sin… Learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin, but having come in sinless, we now sin of our own free-will.”^[455]

The teaching that infants are sinless is common throughout the Fathers; St. Gregory of Nyssa taught that babies who die unbaptized are innocent:

“Whereas the innocent babe has no such plague before its soul’s eyes obscuring its measure of light, and so it continues to exist in that natural life; it does not need the soundness which comes from purgation, because it never admitted the plague into its soul at all.”^[456]

Departing from the patristic consensus, St. Augustine taught that infants are born guilty of sin:

“Seeing now that the soul of an infant fresh from its mother’s womb is still the soul of a human being… Whereas this one, although he is ignorant where he is, what he is, by whom created, of what parents born, is already guilty of offense”.^[457]

St. Augustine also taught that infants who die unbaptized will be condemned to Hell, though their eternal suffering will be mild:

“It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: ‘Judgment from one offense to condemnation’,^[458]and again a little after: ‘By the offense of one upon all persons to condemnation.’^[459]”^[460]

St. Augustine’s teachings on original sin led to Anselm of Canterbury’s satisfaction theory and other heretical beliefs in the West, such as predestination and Calvinism. If death is primarily a punishment from God for the sin of Adam, then God is the author of death. As seen previously, according to St. Cyril of Alexandria, it is Satan who is the author death. If God wants to punish man for the original sin of Adam through Satan, then Satan becomes an instrument used by God for man’s punishment. If death is primarily a punishment for sin and not a merciful deliverance from a life lived eternally in a sinful state, and if God is in a state of wrath towards man that can only be assuaged by the death of His Incarnate Son, then God becomes a blood-thirsty and angry tyrant and the Logos became incarnate to deliver man from the wrath of God rather than from Satan. If man can make no good effort towards salvation, but his salvation depends entirely on God, then God does not love all of mankind and does not desire the salvation of all but predestines some to salvation and others to condemnation.

Regarding St. Augustine’s distorted views on original sin, St. Justin Popovich said:

“St. Augustine especially fought against the Pelagian heresy, zealously defending the ancient teaching of the Church on original sin, but at the same time he himself fell into the opposite extreme. In particular, he argued that original sin destroyed the original nature of man to such an extent that a person corrupted by sin can neither do good nor desire to do good. He is a slave of sin, in which all good intentions and good works are absent.”^[461]

If all men are born in a state of sin, wrath, and condemnation except for the Lord Jesus Christ on account of His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit, then this poses a major problem for the Church’s teaching concerning the great holiness and purity ascribed to the Theotokos.^[462] For this reason, in the West, the false teaching concerning the transmission of original sin led to the need to create another new teaching, unknown to the Fathers, called the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

In 1854, Pope Pius IX issued the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus (Ineffable God) which declared this novel teaching as a dogma, stating:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”^[463]

In other words, while the Theotokos was born of a man and a woman just as all mankind, Augustinian teaching would say that she was therefore guilty of the original sin from the time of conception and warranted condemnation; and since the Church has always believed in her great purity from childhood, the proponents of Augustinianism had to invent a new teaching that excludes the Theotokos alone from “all stain of original sin.”

Fr. John’s assertion that “the All-Holy Virgin had reached glorification at three years of age. A small child is receptive. Its heart has not yet been hardened and it has not become cunning”^[464],reflects the patristic view that the Theotokos was pure and holy from birth and that children are born innocent. The fact that the Theotokos had reached glorification (theosis) by age three when she was presented in the Temple and dwelled in the Holy of Holies is clear from the hymnography of the Orthodox Church on the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple (November 21):

“After thou wast born, O Bride of God and Sovereign Lady, thou camest to the temple of the Lord to be brought up in the Holy of Holies, as one holy; and Gabriel was then sent to thee, the all-blameless, bringing nourishment to thee. All the Heavens were astonished, beholding the Holy Spirit make His dwelling in thee.”^[465]

“Be glad today, O righteous Joachim, and rejoice in spirit, O Anna most blest, as ye now offer to the Lord, like a three-year-old spotless calf, the august and all-immaculate and holy child born of you.”^[466]

“She who in body is but three years old, and yet in the spirit is full of years, more spacious than the heavens’ breadth and above all the hosts on high, let the pure and Virgin Bride of God be honoured in sacred songs.”^[467]

It would be impossible for the Orthodox to call the Theotokos “all-blameless” or “spotless” if the Church held to the Roman Catholic understanding of original sin while at the same time rejecting the Immaculate Conception. St. Maximos the Confessor, after explaining how Psalm 44 refers to the great spiritual beauty of the Theotokos at the age of three when she was presented to the Temple, said:

“Even then many noble and chosen people from the nation had gathered at her entrance into the temple, but also now the wealthy, meaning those who are filled with divine grace, serve her and glorify her in the Holy Spirit… [Psalm 44] goes on to describe her inner riches not only by the consenting to God’s design, but also by her display of the gifts of the Holy Spirit deep within her heart, so numerous and lovely that they defy description.”^[468]

St. Gregory Palamas also states that the Theotokos was “full of divine graces” even at the age of three:

“Even at that tender age, being full of divine graces and not wanting in the perfection of her mental faculties, she understood, more than anyone else did at the time, what was happening to her. She showed as best she could that, rather than being led, she was coming to God by herself and of her own volition, as though it were natural for her to fly towards holy and divine love, and to consider entering the Holy of Holies and dwelling there as something desirable which she knew was fitting for her.

When God’s High Priest understood that the Maid apparently possessed divine grace above all others, he had to count her worthy of something more excellent than anyone else deserved. He led her into the Holy of Holies and then persuaded everyone to be content with what had happened.”^[469]

The Theotokos from her youth was “spotless,” “all-immaculate,” “holy,” filled with the Holy Spirit, and dwelt miraculously in the Holy of Holies on account of her exalted and unrivaled spiritual stature. If she inherited the ancestral sin, how could she attain such a spiritual stature prior to the Incarnation? According to Orthodox teaching, the Theotokos did inherit ancestral sin, which means she inherited corruption and death which were the consequences of the sin of Adam. However, she did not inherit the guilt and stain of sin according to the Augustinian view of original sin.

As to how the Theotokos alone was so exceedingly pure from birth, St. Paisios the Athonite explains:

“Saints Joachim and Anna are the most dispassionate couple that has ever existed. They had no carnal mindset at all. This is how God had made man and this is how he wanted humans to be born, dispassionately. But after the Fall, passion infiltrated the relationship between man and woman. As soon as a dispassionate couple was found, just as God had created man and just as he wished them to be born, Panaghia was born, that pure and chaste creation, and then Christ incarnated. A thought occurs to me that Christ would have descended to earth sooner if a pure pair, such as Saints Joachim and Anna, had existed.

The Roman Catholics fall into error and believe, supposedly out of piety, that Panaghia was born without the original sin. While Panaghia was not exempt from the original sin, She was however born as God had wanted human beings to be born after Creation. She was panagne – all-pure – because the holy Ancestors’ conception of Her was passionless, that is without sensual pleasure. The holy Ancestors of Jesus Christ, after fervent prayer to God for the gift of a child, conceived not by carnal lust, but through obedience to God. I had experienced this fact on Mount Sinai.^[470]”^[471]

While all infants are born innocent of personal sins, they are subject to ancestral sin; to the death and corruption which resulted from the Fall. Nevertheless, a person’s inclination towards purity or towards sin from birth can be influenced by the degree to which the parents also were subject to passions, as well as the environment in which the child is raised. Sts. Joachim and Anna lived righteously before the conception of the Theotokos and raised her in a holy manner prior to her entrance into the Temple at age three.

Fr. John Romanides understood that man inherits the good and bad traits of his parents and that it is impossible to escape the corruptibility of the fallen world without Christ:

“Since man is an inseparable part of nature, it is impossible for him to escape the corruptibility that rules within it. His existence depends on nature, with which he is continuously engaged in an exchange of constituent elements. Truly man is ‘earth.’^[472]He was not made an independent being but a part and member of the whole Creation and mankind. He inherits an abundance of good and bad traits from his parents and forefathers. The interdependence among men is so close that the endangered life of one man can be saved by the blood of another. Among the inherited diseases of mankind, of course, the general basis for all illness is corruptibility and death, in which Satan and sin rule. Only Christ, Who was born of the Virgin through the Holy Spirit, was born outside of the tyranny of the devil.”^[473]

In The Ancestral Sin, Fr. John is also very clear that salvation depends upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that man cannot be perfected by his own will (such a statement would be impossible to make as a Pelagian):

“The teaching that salvation depends upon the indwelling life-giving energy of the Holy Spirit in man is the common mark of the Holy Scriptures, of the ancient Church, and of all the Fathers of the Orthodox tradition. It is the whole basis of the mysterial acts of the Orthodox Church.”^[474]

With the Greek Fathers and the rest of the Orthodox Church, Fr. John Romanides rejects the teaching of St. Augustine that man is born guilty of sin on account of original sin and liable to condemnation, but this does not mean he sides with Pelagius whom St. Augustine opposed. Nowhere in his criticism of Augustinian teaching does Fr. John say that Pelagius was correct, and he cites and agrees with the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria at the Fifth Ecumenical Council against the Pelagians. Fr. John did not teach that infants should not be baptized, that man can achieve perfection without the help of divine grace, that baptism only grants remission for past sins while man’s perfection depends on his own will, or any of the other heretical teachings the Pelagians were condemned for by the Council of Carthage in 419 AD. The Council of Orange in 521 that went further into condemning so-called “Semi-Pelagianism” and that claimed man can do nothing good of his own will without the Holy Spirit was not ratified by any Ecumenical Council. The accusation that Fr. John is guilty of Pelagianism is based on selective quotes taken out of context and on the assumption that his rejection of St. Augustine’s teachings on original sin is somehow an endorsement of the teachings of the Pelagians who wrote in opposition to St. Augustine on this topic. As St. Justin Popovich and Fr. John Romanides understood, both St. Augustine and Pelagius were in error concerning original sin.

4.) v.) Saint Augustine and the Orthodox West

A common misconception that has spread in recent times is that Fr. John Romanides had a hatred for the West, and for St. Augustine of Hippo in particular. The West was Orthodox prior to the Great Schism, and Romanides never denied this, nor did he deny the sanctity of the Orthodox Fathers of the West:

“When we read the early Romans of the West, we see that there was an Orthodoxy that differed in no way at all from Orthodoxy in the East. There was absolutely no difference: the same purification, the same illumination, the same glorification, the same lives of the saints, the same theology and there was no sense that any difference existed.”^[475]

Fr. John, in fact, rejected the commonly believed historical trope that there was an “East vs West” or “Greek vs Latin” opposition:

“[The] identity of the West Romans and of the East Romans as one indivisible nation, faithful to the Roman faith promulgated at the Roman Ecumenical Synods held in the Eastern part of the Empire, is completely lost to the historians of Germanic backgrounds, since the East Romans are consistently called ‘Greeks’ and ‘Byzantines’.

Thus, instead of dealing with church history in terms of a united and indivisible Roman nation, and presenting the Church as being carved up in the West by Germanic conquerors, European historians have been sucked into the Frankish perspective, and thereby deal with church history as though there were a Greek Christendom as distinguished from a Latin Christendom.

…

A much more accurate understanding of history presenting the Filioque controversy in its true historical perspective is based on the Roman viewpoint of church history, to be found in (both Latin and Greek) Roman sources, as well as in Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic, and Turkish sources. All these point to a distinction between Frankish and Roman Christendom, and not between a mythical Latin and Greek Christendom. Among the Romans, Latin and Greek are national languages, not nations. The Fathers are neither Latins nor Greeks but Romans.”^[476]

He affirmed that there was doctrinal unity between the Greek-speaking Fathers of the East and the Latin-speaking Fathers of the West, with the exception of St. Augustine:

“Through his monastic movement and his writings in this field and on Christology, Saint John Cassian had a strong influence on the Church in Old Rome also. In his person, as in other persons such as Ambrose, Jerome, Rufinus, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great, we have an identity in doctrine, theology, and spirituality between the East and West Roman Christians. Within this framework, Augustine in the West Roman area was subjected to general Roman theology. In the East Roman area, Augustine was simply ignored.”^[477]

St. Augustine was largely unknown to the Greek East for most of Church history; many of his major writings didn’t exist in Greek until after the Schism. He also did not have a large influence in the West until the 8th century:

“In the East, interest in St. Augustine developed only many centuries after his falling asleep. Some major works of his (at least De Trinitate) were translated by Maximus Planudes near the turn of the 14^th century, but a few decades later Augustine’s writings began to receive a more serious treatment through the work of two brothers: Demetrios Kydones and Prochoros Kydones. Regarding these brothers, however, it is significant that they both resisted St. Gregory Palamas and rejected the teaching of hesychasm… [and they] eventually apostatized to the Latin faith… While it is uncertain when Against the Donatists was translated into Greek, it also received very little attention in English until relatively recently. In Philip Schaff’s edition of the text, the translator (J.R. King, M.A.) believed there were no English translations prior to his which was done in 1870… In general, Augustine’s influence in the pre-Schism West is found in minor ways (usually terminology), but there is little indication of any comprehensive acceptance of his teachings on ecclesiology or other errors until the Carolingian Franks. For the East, he was generally unknown and was not venerated until St. Nicodemos included him in the Synaxarion in the 18^th century, due to the absence of writings by or about him in Greek for most of Church history.”^[478]

St. Augustine also never occupied a place of great authority or veneration in Russia until after the 18^th century when his works began to be translated “as a result of Peter the Great’s westernizing policies”^[479]:

“Augustine’s name was nowhere to be found in the ancient Slavonic calendars, neither in the liturgical books nor in the Tcheti Minei of Metropolitan Macari (d. 1564), nor in the hagiography of St. Dimitri of Rostov; nor even in the codex of 1891 of the Library of the Synod of Moscow. He was not mentioned by Peter Moghila in his Orthodox Confession… Nowhere in the history of this Orthodox land has been discovered a temple, an icon, a hymn (troparion) in his honor; nor did Orthodox Christians take his name. So it has been throughout church history. Early in the life of the Orthodox West, Augustine gained a certain prominence, even attracting disciples. He was not so successful in the East. As the record shows, there is little memory of him there.”^[480]

Fr. John viewed St. Augustine as diverging from the theology of other Western Fathers such as St. Jerome and St. Ambrose of Milan:

“Although Latins, Protestants, and their Orthodox imitators have linked Augustine with St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, his theology has no connection at all with the theology of the latter. They both follow the tradition of the Orthodox Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, whereas Augustine is the unique source of the heresy of Barlaam of Calabria, who was opposed by St. Gregory Palamas and condemned by the Councils of Constantinople in 1341, 1347 and 1351 on account of his teaching that God’s revelations to mankind were made through created things that come and go.

He teaches that God brings visible and audible phenomena into being in order that they be seen and heard, and they return to non-being as soon as the specific revelation comes to an end. They remain, because some recipients have written them down.

This heresy is the backbone of Augustine’s teaching, but also of the teaching of Latins and Protestants to this day. Augustine expounds this teaching of his in detail, and repeats it in every chapter of his large book De Trinitate.”^[481]

Fr. John did believe that St. Augustine’s writings contained errors, and that these errors were elevated by the Franks and became the foundation for the erroneous theology that would subsequently be developed in the West:

“The Franks knew no Fathers of the Church except Augustine”.^[482] “The mistakes of Augustine…became the foundations of the interpretative tradition of Western Christians up to the present day.”^[483]

The Franks took the errors of one saint and used them as the standard by which to assess all theological matters, while ignoring the patristic consensus. St. Photios the Great explains that we should ignore any errors made by a saint that do not agree with the consensus of the Church, while embracing the man himself. Referring to the assertion that St. Augustine taught the Filioque (that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), St. Photios said:

“If ten or even twenty Fathers have said this, 600 and a numerous multitude have not said it. Who is it that offends the Fathers? Is it not those who, enclosing the whole piety of those few Fathers in a few words and placing them in contradiction to councils, prefer them to the numberless rank (of other Fathers)? Or is it those who choose as their defenders the many Fathers? … If some have spoken imprecisely, or for some reason not known to us, even deviated from the right path, but no question was put to them nor did anyone challenge them to learn the truth – we admit them to the list of Fathers, just as if they had not said it, because of their righteousness of life and distinguished virtue and their faith, faultless in other respects. We do not, however, follow their teaching in which they stray from the path of truth… We, though, who know that some of our Holy Fathers and teachers strayed from the faith of true dogmas, do not take as doctrine those areas in which they strayed, but we embrace the men.”^[484]

Romanides believed that the writings of St. Augustine went through periods of change, and that towards the end of his life, St. Augustine became more in line with the dogmatic consensus of the Church:

“Augustine is a pre-eminently philosophizing theologian, at least in his youth, because the development of his theology passes through various phases. If someone wants to study Augustine, the worst mistake is to take him as a single whole. Augustine is not a single whole; there are different Augustines, depending on the period in which he was writing. There is quite a serious development in his thinking. There is not one Augustine. There are at least three Augustines! There is Augustine the Neoplatonist before baptism. After baptism there is Augustine the speculative thinker, who tries to philosophize about the faith. Then there is the third Augustine, when he is informed of the official teaching of the Roman Church. By the Roman Church, I do not mean the Church of Rome: the Church of Constantinople is also the Roman Church.”^[485]

Due to their inconsistency and speculative nature, Fr. John regarded the writings of St. Augustine as products of speculation that held no dogmatic authority in the Church. St. Augustine himself did not actually regard his own writings as authoritative either. Fr. John believed that the Augustine of the system of Augustinianism that would develop in the West centuries after his repose is not in fact reflective of the saint himself:

“In fact, [Augustine] often says, like someone who is not sure about what he writes, ‘If someone knows better, may he please correct me if I have made a mistake.’ He says that frequently. So, the Augustine of the Franks is not the Augustine of historical reality.”^[486]

Fr. John believed that St. Augustine’s theological mistakes were largely due to his ignorance of the Greek Fathers, and that he would have humbly corrected himself if he had been familiar with their writings:

“Augustine was the most moderate of his own followers/devotees, and had he known Greek well, he would have surely discovered that the Greek-speaking Fathers did not teach what he believed they did, and would certainly have followed their teachings. He always speaks with great respect for the Greek-speaking Roman Fathers and appeals to their authority to prove what he believes they teach, while at the same time confessing that he does not fully understand them, as he knows them only through a few translations. He even declares that he gladly welcomes suggestions for correction.”^[487]

St. Augustine himself seems be in agreement with Fr. John’s assessment; that he shouldn’t be regarded as an authority on dogmatic questions largely due to his inability to read the Greek Fathers:

“Let them also bear in mind, that the writings which we have read on these subjects have not been sufficiently explained in the Latin tongue, or they are not available, or at least it was difficult for us to find them; nor are we so familiar with Greek, as to be in any way capable of reading and understanding such books on these subjects in that language, although from the few excerpts that have been translated for us…I desire not only a devout reader, but also an open-minded critic…I would that there could be as many inquiring about it as there are objecting to it…Do not be bound to my writings as though they were the canonical Scriptures…if you find anything in mine which does not appear to be certain, then do not hold fast to it unless your mind has grasped it as certain.”^[488]

A common argument used to deny the fact that St. Augustine’s writings contained errors is his commemoration as a Holy Father in the canons of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite responds to this in his commentary in The Rudder regarding the authority of the Ecumenical Council of Trullo, also referred to as the Fifth-Sixth or Quinisext Council^[489]:

“Note also that, inasmuch as the Latins declaim against this Synod because it did not mention the local Synods held in the West, nor the Canons of the Latins that had been collected by Bartholomew Carantzas and many others before him; we reply as follows to this objection. We point out that the Synod enumerated those Canons of Synods and Fathers which were in use in the Church, but at the same time also recognized and accepted all the Canons of local Synods and regional Synods held in the West that agreed with the Canons of the Ecumenical Synods. And, in general, just as the Fifth Ecumenical Synod recognized and accepted the declarations of St. Augustine and of St. Ambrose, not, to be sure, in general, but only as many as pertained to the right faith and had been issued in refutation of heretics. So do we too recognize and accept whatever is right and correct in what the Synods held in the West have declared, but not everything, seeing that the Pope of Rome has decreed many things therein that are strangely incongruous.”^[490]

In other words, St. Nikodemos expressed the view (in The Rudder, which was not only endorsed by many saints but also by the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time, and ordered by the Patriarch to be distributed throughout the Church, where it was universally accepted by all of the Local Churches)^[491], that St. Augustine was considered a Father of the Church only with regard to the specific teachings that were adopted by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, for instance his belief that heretics could be condemned after their repose (the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Origen after his repose).

The Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council commemorate St. Augustine amongst other Orthodox Fathers, saying that “their writings on the true faith”^[492] are to be followed. The Fathers of the Council specify what writings from St. Augustine they accept:

“[We embrace] several letters of Augustine, of most religious memory, who shone forth resplendent among the African bishops…[the letters say] that it was quite right that heretics should be anathematized after death. And this ecclesiastical tradition, the other most reverend bishops of Africa have preserved: and the holy Roman Church as well had anathematized certain bishops after their death, although they had not been accused of any falling from the faith during their lives: and of each we have the evidence in our hands.”^[493]

The fact that St. Augustine made some theological mistakes is affirmed by Pope Vigilius in his epistle in confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

“The blessed Augustine, who was in very sooth illustrious in the Divine Scriptures, and a master of Roman eloquence, retracted some of his writings and corrected some of his own sayings”.^[494]

It is therefore abundantly clear that the commemoration of St. Augustine in the Fifth Ecumenical Council does not constitute the Church’s acceptance of all of his teachings.

Fr. Seraphim Rose said that he was “no great admirer of Augustine’s doctrines”^[495], that St. Augustine made theological mistakes, and that he “is a Father of less weight than many others”^[496]:

“It cannot be doubted that his teaching missed the mark in many respects: with regard to the Holy Trinity, grace and nature, and other doctrines… To some extent, the faults of Augustine’s teaching are the faults of the Western mentality, which on the whole did not grasp Christian doctrine as profoundly as the East. St. Mark of Ephesus makes a particular remark to the Latin theologians at Ferrara-Florence which might be taken as a summary of the differences between East and West: ‘Do you see how superficially your teachers touch on the meaning, and how they do not penetrate into the meaning, as for example do John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian and other universal luminaries of the Church?’”^[497]

As seen above, it is commonly understood in the Orthodox Church that the Greek Fathers hold a position of preeminence over the Western Fathers in terms of the importance of their doctrinal writings. St. Nikodemos states in The Rudder:

“It must be remembered that most of the local Synods and regional Synods held in the West erred and spoke amiss; and, indeed, to them was due the addition to the Creed that was the first and worst of evils and the primary and incipient cause of the schism.”^[498]

One could disagree with Fr. John (as well as St. Nikodemos and Fr. Seraphim Rose) on the importance of St. Augustine and the place of the rest of the Orthodox Fathers of the West, but it would be inaccurate to claim that Fr. John simply regarded the Orthodox West prior to the Great Schism as fundamentally inferior to the East or that he hated St. Augustine. Fr. John even said himself, “I do not say that it is of no value [to read St. Augustine], because I sit reading Augustine all day long.”^[499] Fr. John critiqued the theology of St. Augustine in detail with reference to the other Fathers in the East and West. He was very critical of the Latin Franks for following only St. Augustine and dismissing the other Fathers of East and West. The Frankish elevation of St. Augustine over and above all other Fathers as if he is the representative of the West is a major reason why Fr. John’s criticisms of St. Augustine are misinterpreted as a rejection of the pre-Schism West altogether.

4.) vi.) Biblical Inerrancy

Some have claimed that Fr. John Romanides engaged in a “denial of Scripture as a ‘mixture of Babylonian myths’”^[500], but nowhere does Fr. John actually say this. He does say, however, that the cosmology of the book of Genesis when compared with the Babylonian cosmology presents striking similarities, which is a very different statement:

“In the past the acceptance of Holy Scripture from the scientific and historical point of view was not an issue. If you accept Holy Scripture on these subjects nowadays you can come to grief. There are things in Holy Scripture that are not part of the faith. Say, for instance, that a girl is raped in the Old Testament. Is that a matter of faith? What has that to do with dogma, glorification, or illumination? It is a sin, something unlawful. Is that part divinely inspired? Then there is the cosmology of the Old Testament. When the Old Testament talks about the firmament, this is Babylonian cosmology. In that period the people of the Middle East observed that, when they dug a well, they found water underground. They saw rain falling from the sky, and often there were floods. If you read the Psalms carefully you will see that there are storehouses up in the sky. You open the door, as in the shower, and water falls down. Therefore, the way they imagined the creation was that in the beginning there was God, Who created the firmament. The earth was in the middle of the waters and afterwards He suspended the firmament, to support the waters above it, and we have the earth to retain the water below. We are in the middle and live between the waters. This is the cosmology of the Old Testament. Does it bear any relation to reality? If we say that Holy Scripture is inspired to the letter, it becomes ridiculous. Certain renowned ‘apologists’ used to promote such ideas in the past, but they are complete nonsense.”^[501]

The survival of the Orthodox Faith in the East stands in contrast to its decline and death in the West, after which the West embarked down a road of confused dichotomies and constant ideological pendulum swinging.^[502] While the Orthodox East has remained on the royal path, the heterodox West, as well as the Orthodox under its influence, views the East as being on the opposite extreme of whatever side of the pendulum they have swung to. Some accused Fr. John of being influenced by liberal Protestants and others accused Fr. John of being influenced by conservative political fanatics. Regarding the topic at hand, the denial of a total “to the letter” literal infallibility of the written text of the Bible (an extreme in one direction of the pendulum) is seen as being liberal. Conversely, the emphasis on patristic tradition and rejection of Scholasticism among the Greek theologians of his day (an extreme in another direction of the pendulum) is seen as being conservative.

Fr. Seraphim Rose teaches us to not make an idol of the written text itself, that we need not take a position of absolute literalism, and that we have no problem admitting the possibility of minor copyist errors:

“[If] you interpret Genesis absolutely literally, like [sectarians] would like to, you come to ridiculous absurdities.”^[503]

“The Greek and Hebrew texts of Genesis are different. According to the Septuagint, the world is about 7,500 years old; according to the Hebrew text, it’s about 6,000 years old. It’s an obvious discrepancy. How do we solve problems like that? The Fathers admit that there can be a little mistake that is handed down; there are simply miscopyings and so forth… Perhaps some scribes added or subtracted a hundred years here and there when they were copying the text. There’s no particular Patristic teaching that we have to define the world as being exactly 7,490 years old. It could be a little more or a little less; it’s not an important question.”^[504]

In Genesis 1:2 we have a Hebrew word tehom (תְה֑וֹם), meaning “of the deep”, which is derived from a Babylonian word. This traditional Hebrew word and its ancient Babylonian predecessor have a very similar meaning behind each of their cosmological conceptions, denoting the idea of “waters of chaos”. Many places in the Old Testament also refer to the three-storied firmament and the pillars which support them. This cosmology finds its origins in Babylonian culture. This should not surprise us because Abraham was from the region of Babylon. Fr. John is not saying that the book of Genesis is itself “a mix of Babylonian creation myths” but rather that the imagery used to speak about the cosmos is to some extent derived from the historical context in which the Bible was written.

Contrary to the claims of his critics, Romanides did in fact affirm the infallibility of Holy Scripture, however, according to the patristic (and not the Western) understanding:

“Holy Scripture and the Church teach infallibly about God, because the Holy Tradition or the Deposit in them are identical. In the center of the Holy Tradition, surrounding Christ in Glory, are Christ’s friends, the Prophets, the Apostles and the Saints, who know God as a friend knows a friend. The faithful participate in the infallible [state] of the Friends of God through the Bishops as long as the latter remain faithful to the teaching of the former and teach the former’s theology in accordance with the explicit indications of their theosis and restrict themselves methodologically and spiritually to their words and thoughts.

Although Holy Scripture is divinely inspired and teaches infallibly in the Church about God and His relations with the world, yet, Holy Scripture outside the Church (i.e., the Body of Christ) or the living Deposit of the Tradition, does not teach infallibly, because the interpretive operation of the Holy Spirit, who led and leads to theosis the Prophets, Apostles and Saints, is not there to lead to the whole truth. The Friends of God know what the Lord does. He who is outside the communion of the Friends of God and does not submissively follow their teaching is ignorant of the Key of Holy Scripture and finds himself outside the Deposit of the Tradition and, consequently, outside the Truth.”^[505]

This does not however mean that the Bible is by any means entirely not literal; we will examine this in more detail later on. The Orthodox Church has a different understanding than Protestants and Roman Catholics as to what the inspiration of Scripture means. The writers of Scripture had a direct experience of God (theosis) which is beyond all created words, and then attempted to explain this in created words. The text of Scripture, the actual words, the linguistic symbols of human language, are not themselves revelation. The revelation is the noetic experience that is had by the Prophet, Apostle, and Saint. Scripture is not revelation itself but rather it is about revelation:

“The only source of knowledge of God is the glorified, who know God directly by experience. The experience of these glorified people is the foundation of correct faith concerning God. The glorified saint knows God directly. Subsequently he passes on to us things about God, so we know about God from him. The Prophets, Apostles and saints of the Church are our authority with regards to God. We have faith in God through these people. We cannot have direct experience concerning God unless we have reached the stage of illumination and union or glorification in our spiritual life.

Theology springs from the vision of God granted to the Prophets, Apostles, saints and so on: to all those who have reached the state of being glorified. This experience that the Prophets, Apostles and saints of the Church possess is the foundation of theology and it is the only secure and real bridge between God and man.”^[506]

“Scripture in itself does not constitute the uncreated glory of God in Christ, consequently Scripture is not revelation. Scripture is not Pentecost, but it speaks about Pentecost. The experience of Pentecost is included in Scripture and at the same time it transcends Scripture. Holy Scripture is not revelation, as some people think. Revelation transcends Holy Scripture, because revelation is the experience of Pentecost, which cannot be described. What we have in Scripture is not a description of Pentecost but a discussion about Pentecost. Only someone who participates in the revelation knows what revelation is… Holy Scripture is not the word of God. It is about the Word of God. Always ‘about’, not the revelation itself or the word of God.”^[507]

The Bible is a created book made up of created linguistic symbols. To say that the Bible is identical to the Word of God would be idolatry. The Bible is a book about the Word of God, written by human beings under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the experience of theosis. St. Sophrony of Essex says:

“Suppose that for some reason the Church were to be bereft of all her books, of the Old and New Testaments, the works of the holy Fathers, of all services books – what would happen? Sacred Tradition would restore the Scriptures, not word for word, perhaps – the verbal form might be different – but in essence the new Scriptures would be the expression of that same ‘faith which was once delivered unto the saints.’^[508]They would be the expression of the one and only Holy Spirit continuously active in the Church, her foundation and her very substance.

The Scriptures are not more profound, not more important than Holy Tradition but, as said above, they are one of its forms – the most precious form, both because they are preserved and convenient to make use of. But removed from the stream of Sacred Tradition, the Scriptures cannot be rightly understood through any scientific research.

If the Apostle Paul had ‘the mind of Christ,’^[509]how much more does this apply to the whole body of the Church of which St. Paul is one member? And if the writings of St. Paul and the other apostles are Holy Scripture, then new Scriptures of the Church, written supposedly after the loss of the old books, would in their turn become Holy Scripture, for according to the Lord’s promise God, the Holy Trinity, will be in the Church even unto the end of the world.^[510]”^[511]

The Scriptures, being words about revelation, can themselves only be properly interpreted by those who share in the experience of revelation. Romanides draws the distinction between the inspiration/inerrancy of the Scriptures and that of the interpretation of the Scriptures:

“So it is with the Holy Scripture. In the hands of someone inspired by God, who is in the state of illumination or glorification, it is divinely inspired. In the hands of a pseudo-theologian, however, Holy Scripture is nothing.”^[512]

Archbishop Basil Krivocheine analyzes the teachings of St. Symeon the New Theologian on the Scriptures and comes to the same conclusion as Fr. John Romanides; “that a person who does not have the Spirit cannot understand Scripture”.^[513] In St. Symeon’s own words:

“Having never seen (Christ) and never having deserved to hear His voice, how can His holy will, as pleasing as it is perfect, be taught to you? If you say that you will learn it from Scripture, I ask the question: ‘How will you, who are completely dead and lying in darkness, hear it and put it into practice, so that you become deserving of life and of the vision of God?’ In no way at all!”^[514]

“The design of the grace of the Spirit hidden in [Scripture] overwhelms the senses of the mind with pleasure; by removing it from earthly realities and the lowliness of things visible”.^[515]

“A man might lift up a whole chest and carry it on his shoulders, yet unaware of the treasure stored in it. Likewise, he may learn the entire Scriptures by heart…and yet be ignorant of the gift of the Spirit concealed therein. It is not by the chest that its contents are shown; it is not by Scripture itself that its substance is disclosed.”^[516]

“What is sealed and closed, invisible and unknowable to all men becomes disclosed, visible and knowable to us only through the Holy Spirit. How can those who have never experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit, His radiance and illumination, the visitation (He makes) in them, even possibly know, comprehend or understand even one iota of it?”^[517]

St. Hilarion Troitsky says that it is impossible for the Bible to be correctly interpreted outside of the Church:

“What kind of Divine inspiration can there be outside the Church, without the Spirit of God? If the grace-filled aspect of Holy Scripture is obliterated outside the Church, then what remains? We are left with the Bible, books, a literary work, a literary memorial. In the Church Holy Scripture is not everything, but outside the Church there is no Holy Scripture, no Word of God at all; what remains of Holy Scripture is only the books. Very often people outside of the Church talk about their reverence for Holy Scripture and accuse the Church of disdaining it. Such talk, however, represents nothing but self-deception and sad misunderstanding. We can think rightly about Holy Scripture only by beginning with the idea of the Church, and we can correctly use Scripture for our own benefit only by living within the Church. Without the Church, without Church life, Christianity itself dissolves into nothing, and reading literary monuments cannot replace a dead life.”^[518]

This teaching is found in the New Testament itself. St. Paul says:

“But a material-minded man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he is not able to know it, because it is spiritually examined.”^[519]

And the Apostle Peter likewise says:

“Wherefor, beloved, looking for these things, earnestly endeavor to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless; and be deeming that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation, even as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom which was given him, wrote to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the rest of Scriptures, to their own destruction.”^[520]

One critic claimed that Romanides taught that “no one can read and understand the Bible if they aren’t in theosis.”^[521] Fr. John (along with all of the Orthodox saints) taught that it is only those who are purified of the sinful passions and filled with the Holy Spirit that are reliable interpreters of the Holy Scriptures. This does not mean that those who are still struggling against their passions shouldn’t read the Holy Scriptures. They should indeed read them, but should also read and follow the interpretations of the Holy Fathers and not trust their own reasoning, darkened as it is by sin; “any interpretation of Scripture made without the grace of the Holy Spirit would be an act of unacceptably presumptuous pride”.^[522]

Fr. John did not reject the Holy Scriptures or suggest that they are full of errors regarding theology and the way to salvation, but emphasized the need for the Holy Scriptures to be properly interpreted, within the Church, by those who are guided by the same Spirit that inspired the Holy Scriptures. This is the reason why the commentaries of the Holy Fathers on the Scriptures are regarded with such high esteem in the Orthodox Church. Fr. John was also responding to the Protestant temptation to conflate belief in the inerrancy of Scripture with the inerrancy of their own private interpretations of Scripture, which has led to hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of Protestant schisms.

5.) The Errors of Father John Romanides

5.) i.) The Patristic Response to Errors in the Writings of the Saints

While Fr. John Romanides has not been glorified as a saint, and not even his closest students and disciples consider him to be infallible, in examining the errors that Fr. John did make it is important to firstly understand why and how even some great saints have fallen into error.

As we showed previously, those who knew Fr. John have testified that he had experience of noetic prayer and he wrote as one who had experience of the things he taught about, but only God knows to what heights he attained in this experience. If Fr. John made some mistakes, they should be overlooked as distractions from his central teaching on how man comes to know God experientially with the knowledge that is deifying and salvific; the knowledge of God to which the Prophets, Apostles and Holy Fathers attained and which we also are called to attain.

St. Barsanuphius the Great speaks on the question of how a holy person could speak incorrectly about something. He outlines the important distinction between when a saint is and is not speaking from a place of divine illumination. When a saint prays to God to enlighten him about a certain matter, and he receives this enlightenment from God, then it cannot be doubted that his teaching on the matter is true and from the Holy Spirit. However, a saint may, out of simplicity, accept a teaching handed down to them that is false and, never seeking enlightenment from God about said teaching, continue believing it themselves:

“May all the fathers who have pleased God, the saints and the righteous and genuine servants of God pray for me. Do not think that, because they were saints, they were able actually to comprehend all the depths of God. For the Apostle says: ‘We know only in part.’^[523] And again: ‘To one is given through the Spirit such and such, and not all of these gifts to one and the same person; but to one person it was given in this way, to another in that way, and all of these gifts are activated by one and the same Spirit.’^[524] Knowing then, that the [mysteries] of God are incomprehensible, the Apostles cried out: ‘O the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and how inscrutable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?’ ^[525], and so forth. Applying themselves, therefore, to becoming teachers of their own accord, or else obliged by others to come to this point, they achieved great progress, sometimes even surpassing their own teachers. Moreover, they were assured about the truth in developing new doctrines, while at the same time remaining faithful to the traditions of their teachers.

“In this way, there are also some [brothers] here who have received certain doctrines from their teachers, which are not, however, correct. For after achieving progress and themselves becoming spiritual teachers, nevertheless, they did not pray to God about their teachers, in order to learn whether what they said was spoken through the Holy Spirit. Rather, trusting that their teachers possessed wisdom and knowledge, they did not in fact bother to discern their teachings. And so the teachings of their teachers became mingled with their own teachings, and they spoke sometimes from the doctrines learned from their masters, while at other times from the brilliance of their own intellect. Thus, even the words of their teachers were ascribed to their name. For while they received these words from others, they progressed and improved more than their teachers, and they spoke through the Holy Spirit; that is to say, they were assured by the Spirit and spoke from the doctrines of their teachers who preceded them, but they did not actually examine these words in order to discern whether they needed to be assured by God through supplication and prayer in regard to their truth. So the teachings [of the two] were mingled together. Thus, since it was they who spoke the words, it was to their names that they were ultimately ascribed. Therefore, when you hear that one of them received from the Holy Spirit whatever he speaks, then this is clear assurance that we ought to trust him. When, however, this person speaks on those matters, it does not seem that he refers to the same kind of assurance, but rather to the teachings and tradition of those who preceded him. In this way, while paying attention to their knowledge and wisdom, nonetheless, they did not ask God about these matters, as to whether or not they are true.”^[526]

Later on, we will examine the fact that Fr. John seemed to believe that evolution was compatible with Orthodoxy. There is no doubt that this is a serious error, and its implications in fact lead one down the road to affirming explicitly heretical teachings. Fr. Seraphim Rose, referring to St. Photios the Great and St. Mark of Ephesus, explains how it is possible for a saint to teach something contrary to the patristic consensus in some area of their teachings, even something heretical:

“St. Photios presents an objection typical of the all-too-often narrowly-logical Latin mentality: ‘If they taught well, then everyone who considers them as Fathers should accept their idea; but if they have not spoken piously, they should be cast out together as heretics.’ The answer of St. Photios to this rationalistic view is a model of the depth, sensitivity, and compassion with which true Orthodoxy looks on those who have erred in good faith: ‘Have there not been complicated conditions which have forced many Fathers in part to express themselves imprecisely, in part to speak with adaptation to circumstances under the attacks of enemies, and at times out of human ignorance to which they were subject?… If some have spoken imprecisely, or for some reason not known to us, even deviated from the right path, but no question was put to them nor did anyone challenge them to learn the truth – we admit them to the list of Fathers, just as if they had not said it, because of their righteousness of life and distinguished virtue and their faith, faultless in other respects. We do not, however, follow their teaching in which they stray from the path of truth… We, though, who know that some of our Holy Fathers and teachers strayed from the faith of true dogmas, do not take as doctrine those areas in which they strayed, but we embrace the men.’”^[527]

“St. Mark of Ephesus [also states] the Orthodox teaching regarding Fathers who have erred on some point: ‘… if the Saint was actually of such an opinion, this was when this teaching was a subject of dispute and had not been definitely condemned and rejected by the opposite opinion… so that there is nothing surprising in the fact that he, being human, erred in precision (of truth), when the same thing happened also with many before him… [the errors of certain Fathers are] in no way convincing for us, who behold the common judgment of the Church, and are guided by the Divine Scriptures, but not beholding what each of the Teachers has written as his personal opinion… it is possible for one to be a Teacher and all the same not say everything absolutely correctly, for what need then would the Fathers have had for Ecumenical Councils?’”^[528]

Fr. Seraphim Rose is very instructive on this topic not only for his analysis of the place of St. Augustine in the Church, but also for how he responded to a similar situation in his own life. Metropolitan Anthony Krapovitsky in his work Dogma of Redemption expressed an innovative idea; that it is principally the “soul sufferings” of Christ that save and redeem mankind, rather than His death on the Cross and Resurrection. This idea was, according to Fr. Seraphim, “potentially not only explosive, but absolutely catastrophic.”^[529]We will not analyze the details of this dogmatic question here, but those interested can read further in Chapter 62 of Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works.

Despite the seriousness of this erroneous teaching, Fr. Seraphim advocated for overlooking this error and embracing the person of Metropolitan Anthony despite it. Fr. Seraphim believed Metropolitan Anthony to be “unquestionably a great church figure”^[530]and that “[he] is not known as a careful theologian, but rather as a great pastor”.^[531]

St. John Maximovitch’s similar response is also described in the book:

“[St. John] endeavored to defend the good name of the Metropolitan, to affirm the best part of the Metropolitan’s teaching on the love of Christ, and at the same time to carefully avoid or correct the Metropolitan’s clear departures from Patristic tradition…When Fr. Seraphim (then Eugene) asked Archbishop John about the question of Metropolitan Anthony’s ‘dogma’, the Archbishop responded only with a gesture of his hand, as if to say ‘It’s unimportant’; and then he immediately began speaking about Blessed Augustine of Hippo: another righteous hierarch who had made theological errors. From this Fr. Seraphim later concluded, speaking about Blessed Augustine and Metropolitan Anthony: ‘These are both teachers, flawed in theology, but great in piety, moral inspiration, and Orthodox life.’”^[532]

So, the question regarding someone in the Church who has erred is: has the error of the person in question been overlooked, ignored, and the man himself embraced by the Church? In the case of Fr. John Romanides, the answer is unequivocally: yes.

5.) ii.) The Theory of Evolution

To express one’s experience of the Uncreated God to those who have not had the same experience of God, one must use created words. This is the whole purpose of the Scriptures, to use created words to lead man to direct experience of the Uncreated God. When using created words, one will understandably utilize the cosmology and language with which they are familiar. The book of Revelations refers to the “four corners of the earth”^[533] which could lead to the interpretation that the earth is flat, yet we do not have a consensus among the saints, Fathers, and Councils that one must believe the earth is flat. There is a degree to which the Bible was written in the language of its time, but that does not mean all of its contents are therefore relative or untrue. In the Scriptures we find a cosmology reflective of the common views held when the Scriptures were written. However, this does not mean that we should therefore uncritically accept the cosmology and scientific understandings of our own times as if they cannot be without error. In one of his university lectures, Fr. John said the following regarding cosmology and the age of the earth:

“The cosmology of Genesis shows amazing similarities when compared with Babylonian cosmology. Then there is the chronology of the creation of the world. If we take the Old Testament and reckon when the world was made and when man appeared on earth, we cannot get further than about 6,000 to 6,500 years.

We now know that the universe is much older than 6,500 years, because a few months ago a new star was found that was fifteen billion light-years away from the earth. Our sun is about ninety-four million miles away and it takes about seven minutes for a photon to reach the earth from the sun. A light-year is the distance a photon of light travels in a year. If the sun is ninety-four million miles away, imagine the distance that a light-year represents. So if we put in fifteen billion light-years, even the computer will have difficulty calculating the numbers involved. In any case, we know that the world is at least fifteen billion years old.

This means that Holy Scripture is completely out as regards the chronology of the universe…from the scientific point of view Holy Scripture seems short of information and does not enlighten us much about the composition of the universe as a whole.”^[534]

Fr. John was very interested in science and considered it a given that questions relating to things like cosmology and the age of the earth were best answered by science rather than looking to the Scriptures. His remarks made on the topic in his lectures, however, do not give the impression that he looked very deeply into this subject to understand the basis of claims by modern scientists regarding the age of the earth. Fr. John also doesn’t seem to be familiar with the claims of scientists who insist that the scientific evidence actually demonstrates that the earth is only several thousand years old.^[535]^,^[536]

Fr. John’s perhaps most well-known statement regarding biological evolution and the possibility of man evolving from apes is taken from the following unpublished lecture:

“Now the problem is whether man evolved from the ape, or if man made his appearance as man from the beginning.

According to empirical methods of research, one cannot determine in advance whether various theories developed for an issue are wrong or not. No one can prove it dogmatically, or demonstrate its authenticity, before there is scientific evidence, how an issue, from the standpoint of the evidence, will be found in the positive sciences.

And I think it is a great folly and stupidity for one to sit and engage in an apologetic way with such an issue. Because if man evolved from an ape, then he evolved from an ape. If he did not evolve from an ape, then he did not evolve from an ape. In other words, either he evolved from an ape or not.

Is this a theological problem? No. I believe that in essence it is not a theological problem. It is simply a scientific problem.

Hence, if it is a scientific problem, why should we lose our patience and become agitated and think that Orthodoxy will collapse, if it is proved scientifically, for example, that man evolved from an ape? What significance does this have for Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy is not Paleontology.

In Orthodoxy we do not do theology according to the past, but according to the present. The interest of Orthodoxy is for man as he is now.

…

If man evolved from apes, then the question arises: When, at what moment, did man become man? When, at what moment, and by what criterion, did the ape cease being an ape and become a man? Was it the change of the size of his brain, or did something else happen? The difference between man and animals is not so much in reasoning ability, because certain animals also have rationality. Thus, if it is not the existence of logic in man, what criterion determines whether a man is a man?

The criterion is that man is that animal that has noetic energy (i.e. essentially the nous is manifested by its noetic energy) within him, an organ (the nous) to which the Holy Spirit can come and dwell and pray (on behalf of humans), and through which the Holy Spirit can give to man the grace of illumination, and through illumination man can reach deification, when and for however long God wants.

This is man!

So, as far as where man came from, whether from dirt or an ape (that is to say the issue of the origin of man), this is of secondary importance.”^[537]

Here again, Fr. John seems to naively believe that modern science is concerned purely with the pursuit of the truth about the material world, uninfluenced by ideological and philosophical presuppositions. He also did not appear to concern himself deeply with the theological implications of biological evolution and found the question to be a distraction from what the main focus of our life should be: struggling to know God experientially through purification, illumination and theosis. It’s also noteworthy that this is seemingly the only record we have of Fr. John speaking in any detail about evolution; it is a topic never touched upon in his published writings or in published transcripts of his university lectures.

While Fr. John did not seem to see the subject of biological evolution and an old earth as of great importance, he did nonetheless affirm in other talks that man was created by God in the image of God:

“Holy Scripture refers to man being created in the image of God, but what this means was only fully revealed at the incarnation. Man’s destiny from the beginning was to become like Christ. He was to become god by grace, to attain to being in the likeness of God. In practice, being in God’s image means being like Christ in compassion. Now man, imitating Christ, becomes an image of the Father by grace, participating in the glory of Christ. Thus when someone reaches glorification and attains to being in the likeness of God, he becomes Christ by grace, that is to say, god by grace.”^[538]

Further elaborating on his understanding of the Holy Scriptures and science, Fr. John said:

“The purpose of the concepts of Holy Scripture is purely ascetic, not scientific. It is not that we should track down from the concepts what matter and the heavenly bodies consist of, and how the structure of the universe functions. This is not the aim of these concepts.

The aim of these concepts is to lead us through asceticism to God: by means of purification and illumination to lead us to glorification. Apart from that, these concepts also aim to make clear to us the relationship between uncreated and created things, so that we know that what is uncreated is from nothing, because the Father is from nothing, the Son is from the Father, the Holy Spirit is from the Father, and the divine energies are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. These are uncreated. And then there is the relationship between the created and the uncreated. Created things are from nothing.

The Fathers know about the relationship between the ‘created’ and ‘uncreated’ from their experience of glorification. They not only know about the existence of created and uncreated things but about how they interrelate. This does not mean, however, that they know and learn about the essence of God or even about the essence of creatures.”^[539]

The methodology that Romanides applied to science was patristic, however, the conclusions he came to about evolution and the age of the earth are in error. His basic starting point is legitimate; the Bible was never written with the intention of describing the mechanics of the physical world, and most would admit that an absolutely literal interpretation of everything in the Bible would be inappropriate (e.g. the 144,000 sealed in the book of Revelation^[540], the 1,000-year reign^[541], the “four corners” of the world^[542], and so forth). We do, however, know that we cannot extend this to the theory of evolution, as the consensus of the saints has made quite clear that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Orthodoxy.^[543]

Despite his mistake regarding evolution, Fr. John did not deny that the Old Testament recorded real historical events, but rather believed that providing a mere historical record is not the primary purpose of the Bible:

“There may be points of interest or someone may be interested in what Nebuchadnezzar or Samson or David did and take all these things as history. These are all historical records and may occupy a historian who can use them as historical sources. However, although it is possible for these figures to be studied independently of the science of Orthodox theology, this means using these texts for a purpose for which they were not intended. It is not the purpose of the texts simply to provide historical or philological information or to narrate the history of the kings and so on. Their aim is to relate the progress of a people that had devoted itself to doing the will of God.”^[544]

While he downplayed the importance of the historical events (but did not reject their historical reality) and the testimony of the Scriptures in terms of knowledge relating to history and the material world, it would be inaccurate to say that, as a whole, Fr. John believed the sciences to be entirely more reliable than the Scriptures. When it comes to the second and third kinds of knowledge that we previously saw outlined by St. Isaac the Syrian, Fr. John was very clear that the sciences are completely out of their depth when they attempt an investigation of these realms.

He says clearly that there is a realm of knowledge that science is incapable of penetrating:

“The difference [between Orthodox theology and science] is that, whereas in the positive sciences what is described is describable, in Orthodox theology what is described is indescribable… in the other sciences, what is described is describable and something that someone can describe. There are colors, forms, mathematical symbols etc., and you can talk about it. You know that it is in motion and that it has mass, weight, velocity and so on. In theology, what someone sees in the state of glorification, apart from Christ’s human nature, is indescribable… It has nothing in common with anything created, with anything that we know through our experience, through our faculties of touch, smell, sight, reasoning or hearing, with anything we have experienced physically or mentally. What is called God is completely different.”^[545]

Romanides does certainly take this too far on the issue of evolution and the age of the earth. The mistake he makes is not realizing that the world before the fall is also completely outside the reach of scientific investigation. St. Barsanuphius of Optina speaks of the first-created world:

“We don’t know what kind of moon there was then, what kind of sun, what kind of light…All of this changed after the fall…The beautiful things of this world are only hints of that beauty with which the first-created world was filled, as Adam and Eve saw it. That beauty was destroyed by the sin of the first people.”^[546]

Likewise, Fr. Seraphim Rose says:

“[The first-created world] is beyond the competence of [natural] science to investigate… Then how do we know anything at all about it? Obviously, because God has revealed something of it to us through the Sacred Scripture. But we know, also… St. Gregory the Sinaite and other Holy Fathers of the highest spiritual life beheld the first-created world in the state of Divine vision, which is beyond all natural knowledge”.^[547]

Fr. Seraphim and Fr. John both had the same fundamental understanding, that divine revelation surpasses all natural knowledge and cannot be investigated by the natural sciences. Fr. John’s mistake was not also extending this principle to the world as it was before the Fall. He, however, did not believe that science overrides the Scriptures on all matters. In his view, the possibility of the Scriptures containing scientific inaccuracies only contradicts the Western understanding of what it means to say that Scripture is inspired. He had a patristic understanding of the distinction between spiritual knowledge and knowledge of the created world, between rational knowledge and noetic knowledge. He does, however, mistakenly apply this when it comes to evolution. The main purpose of the Bible is to guide one through the process of purification, illumination, and theosis; Fr. John would certainly not view the physical sciences as more reliable than the Scriptures in this area. His approach to Scripture was focused on the second and third realms of knowledge as described by St. Isaac the Syrian, to the point where he at times seems to have concluded that the Scriptures have nothing whatsoever so say in the first realm of knowledge (natural knowledge). This is where Fr. John did in fact take things too far at times.

Science only operates in the realm of sensory experience, and therefore it cannot give us any knowledge of God. As we’ve previously read Fr. John explain, the words of the text are about the revelation, which is noetically experienced, and are not the revelation itself. The Bible does, however, also accurately record historical information about the early history of man, the flood, the descendants of Abraham, the nation of Israel, and so forth. Much of this history is itself the result of revelation, as in the case of the books of Moses who is known as a “prophet of the past”^[548].We should not, however, fall into such extremes as viewing this as a completely “to the letter” exhaustive history or, on the other hand, as an allegory. The Bible accurately describes historical events and intertwines the telling of these events with spiritual meaning. It does not, however, necessarily record everything down to the most precise detail exactly as it happened. The Orthodox view towards Scripture would not entail a belief that every conversation recorded between figures in the various books of the Old Testament, for example, happened exactly word for word as it is recorded in the text. We certainly affirm, however, that the general narrative presented of the events, conversations, and interactions did happen. Some details of events may be left out that are not relevant to the narrative. Many things that happened in both the Old and New Testament periods are simply not recorded at all.^[549] Conversations between people may be condensed or summarized and not recorded verbatim as they historically occurred. This is very far from taking an entirely allegorical view of the Bible. The events did literally happen, and the people are real historical people who actually lived. There are literally bones of Pharoah’s soldiers at the bottom of the Red Sea, there was a literal physical ark that is perhaps currently located somewhere in modern day Turkey, and so on. Neglecting the importance of the literal-historical reality of the Old Testament narrative is a major blind spot for Romanides and he did err on this question.

It would, however, be a mischaracterization to conclude from the quotes above that Fr. John Romanides was a zealous proponent of Darwinism, biological evolution, and the idea that man descended from apes. He certainly failed to see the importance and theological implications of these questions and mistakenly regarded them as purely scientific questions that could only be answered by scientists. He also failed to understand how much the “scientific” pursuit of knowledge is influenced by unscientific philosophies, ideologies, presuppositions, financial motives, and other forces apart from the pure pursuit of truth regarding the material world.

In the 1970s, the subject of evolution became a topic of importance amongst Orthodox Christians in America when Fr. Seraphim Rose began to seriously discuss it with a group of Greeks affiliated with Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, Massachusetts. In 1973, Fr. Seraphim wrote to his spiritual child Alexey Young regarding an article against evolution that Fr. Seraphim was reviewing prior to printing in Alexey’s journal Nikodemos.^[550] After this publication, Fr. Seraphim received a lot of criticism from the group affiliated with Holy Transfiguration and began to correspond with Dr. Alexander Kalomiros in Greece, who had tried to argue that patristic teaching is compatible with the theory of evolution. Fr. Seraphim’s extensive study of the patristic understanding of Genesis and the problems with both the philosophy and scientific claims of evolution would later be published in 2000 as Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision, which is considered by many to be the definitive word on the subject.

Many who have converted to Orthodoxy after the publication of Fr. Seraphim’s book find it inexcusable that Fr. John did not take more seriously the issue of biological evolution and its compatibility with Orthodox theology. However, Fr. Seraphim’s book on the topic was published only a year before Fr. John’s repose and so he never had an opportunity to read it. Nothing so comprehensive had been published on this topic either before or has since.

Another book published after Fr. John’s repose is My Elder Joseph the Hesychast, which is the account of the life of St. Joseph by his close disciple, Elder Ephraim of Arizona. Fr. John had the greatest reverence for St. Joseph; here is one story from the biography:

“When Elder Joseph was still living at the skete of St. Basil, one day he went to a neighboring church to visit Fr. Gerasimos. That day there happened to be a certain layman visiting from the world.

When Elder Joseph saw the man, he approached him and said: ‘You have a mistake, a serious problem.’

The layman asked: ‘What mistake do I have?’

‘I don’t know,’ replied Elder Joseph. ‘All I know is that there is something seriously wrong with you.’

‘Can we find out what it is?’

‘We cannot determine this now during the day. If you’d like, come down to my hut tonight.’

‘I will be there after midnight, Elder.’

Indeed, during the middle of the night the laymen went to visit him. They started talking, and eventually Elder Joseph discovered that this person, who had obtained a college degree in theology, had written an entire book in support of Darwin’s theory of evolution of the species.

Elder Joseph advised him, ‘When you want to support a theory or opinion, why don’t you draw from the writings of the holy Fathers? A theory or viewpoint is confirmed when it is validated by either the Holy Scriptures or the holy and God-bearing Fathers.’

The theologian ultimately admitted that he had made a mistake to believe in this theory. He then asked Elder Joseph to tell him how he knew he was mistaken.

‘Yesterday, as I approached you,’ explained the Elder, ‘I sensed a foul odor and smelled a bad stench coming from you, and from this I realized that there was something wrong with you.’”^[551]

If Fr. John had heard this story or knew of the many other things that holy elders and saints have said against evolution, it is hard to believe he would have continued to see this as a purely scientific question that posed no major concerns for theology and salvation. Perhaps he did, and we simply have no recorded documentation of this fact. Fr. John reposed in 2001, and most of his published work and university lectures are from the period of the 1950s-1980s, so it is certainly possible his view changed later in his life.

What puzzled Fr. Seraphim in the 1970s was that Orthodox Christians who were defending evolution, for instance Dr. Kalomiros in Greece as well as clergy and monastics connected to Holy Transfiguration Monastery in America, were otherwise very traditional and spoke out against modernism and ecumenism. Those who have converted since Fr. Seraphim’s book was published usually do not realize how many Orthodox Christians who were respected for their zeal for Holy Tradition had fallen into the trap of seeing evolution as compatible with Orthodox theology. There is no indication that Fr. Seraphim ever had any contact with Romanides, nor that Fr. John was ever substantially challenged concerning his views on evolution. It is unclear whether many people were even aware of his views during his lifetime, before they were spread and amplified by the internet. Dr. Kalomiros wrote a substantive thought-out defense of evolution, whereas all we have from Romanides on the subject are a handful of short statements taken from audio recordings of his university lectures. He never made any attempt to undertake a studied examination of the topic; it seems he was mostly indifferent to it.

While Fr. John Romanides has not been glorified as a saint, it is important to acknowledge that even the saints can make mistakes and that Orthodox Christians should not be so quick to reject people completely due to a few errors, but instead to “cover the nakedness of our father,”^[552] and pass over any such errors while embracing everything else they said that is good and true. During his entire correspondence with Dr. Kalomiros, Fr. Seraphim always wrote very respectfully, and never called Dr. Kalomiros a heretic or doubted the sincerity of his faith. Fr. John make a mistake in how he applied the patristic principle of the distinction between the uncreated and created to the theory of evolution, but we do not throw him away entirely over this, as this mistake did not impact the rest of his teachings.

Conclusion

Fr. John Romanides was undoubtedly one of the most important theologians of the 20^th century. His great contribution was to help free Orthodox academic theology from a kind of Babylonian captivity of heterodox and Scholastic influences. He facilitated a turn back to the Fathers, towards a focus on Orthodoxy as a therapeutic system revealed by God for man’s purification, illumination and theosis. Though Fr. John was not completely without fault in his teachings, especially his naivete regarding modern science and its “discoveries” (including the subject of biological evolution and its theological ramifications), the core of Fr. John’s teaching was firmly rooted in the teaching and ethos of the Holy Fathers and nourished by his own efforts to acquire their experience of God for himself. Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to reflect on some of the reasons why Fr. John has come under criticism in some circles, particularly in the English-speaking world, and especially online, since we believe his positive contributions far outweigh any of his faults.

Fr. John’s published teachings available in English are a fraction of what he produced in Greek and these English publications are mostly excerpts transcribed from audio recordings of his university lectures that were published after his repose. As such, while he was constantly summarizing and distilling the teachings of the Fathers, his recorded talks are not as polished as might be expected from a text prepared by the author himself for publication complete with citations, references, and patristic quotes. Many of his lectures were entirely improvised, and given without the use of any notes. People who read snippets from these transcribed talks while not being sufficiently familiar with the teachings of the Fathers may criticize Fr. John while not realizing that Fr. John is simply expressing patristic teaching. Since Fr. John did not publish many of these texts himself, he did not have the opportunity to respond to any of the contemporary criticisms nor did he have a chance to refine, clarify or modify these publications in response to confusion and criticism expressed following their publication.

It is also the case that Orthodox Christians of a younger generation, particularly converts who have converted since the 1980s, do not have the necessary perspective to appreciate the difference between the pre and post Romanides periods in Orthodox theology. His tremendous influence in returning to a focus on the teaching and practice of the Holy Fathers was felt very strongly in America but perhaps more strongly in Greece. In the early 1960s, Mount Athos was in a state of rapid decline and in America there were very few monasteries of any Orthodox jurisdiction and no authentic monasteries in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Consequently, the spiritual state of most Greeks both in America and in Greece was quite low. St. Joseph the Hesychast through his disciples, including Elder Ephraim of Arizona, revived authentic hesychastic monastic life both on Mount Athos and in America through their shining examples of humble ascetic struggle and noetic prayer.^[553] At the same time, Fr. John Romanides, through his teachings at theological schools in America and Greece, also inspired many to labor to acquire noetic prayer under a discerning spiritual father, whether while remaining in the world or by pursuing monastic life. The younger generation, and recent converts, more easily take for granted the state of monastic life today on Mount Athos and in America and the fact that many others today also speak of the great importance of the Holy Fathers and of noetic prayer (even if they may not have actual experience of noetic prayer). While the caliber of authentic monastic and hesychastic life on Mount Athos, in Greece, and in America could of course be much higher, today the situation is much better than it was prior to Romanides, and this improvement is largely due to Fr. John’s influence, a fact many in the younger generation are unaware of.

It should also be understood that the corpus of serious criticism towards Fr. John Romanides is quite small. In the English-speaking world, there are only a handful of online publications of any length that have expressed many of the criticisms documented above. The main text from which the criticisms documented here are drawn is an essay written in 2016 by Jay Dyer, titled Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted. Dyer’s essay relies heavily on Against Romanides by Vladimir Moss; and Dyer, by his own admission, at the time of writing his essay had only read two books by Romanides, The Ancestral Sin and Patristic Theology, the latter of which is not a work published directly by Romanides but rather a transcript of his university lectures. Vladimir Moss has belonged to several “old calendarist” groups over the years that are not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church and who believe that Fr. John (and anyone in communion with any of the Churches on the new calendar) lived his life in schism and heresy for remaining in communion with the Church of Greece. Fr. John was in touch with some old calendarists during his life, but he did not ultimately agree with their position, and he is subject to attack by many of them for this reason. Many on the internet who criticize Fr. John do not seem to have read his writings with any great attention but simply pass along the criticisms of Moss without first evaluating whether these criticisms are valid.

Since Dyer and Moss, there has, to our knowledge, been no serious academic critique produced against Fr. John Romanides, but he is criticized frequently to this day across the various social media platforms.The criticisms made by Dyer and Moss are repeated regularly online, however they are either only in the form of social media posts or are buried within hours of recorded video livestreams. This is why we have had to so frequently cite Dyer’s essay in particular. In recent years, there have arisen many English-speaking converts to Orthodoxy who have gained notoriety for engaging in apologetics and theological debates on popular online platforms such as YouTube. While these debates have helped many people to believe in the truth of Orthodoxy and to pursue entrance into the Orthodox Church, such sources are usually focused on historical and theological topics with little attention to the writings of the neptic Fathers, their lives, and their teachings concerning how man is cured from his spiritual illnesses. Fr. John was very critical of those who seek to theologize without having first made the effort to acquire what St. Sophrony of Essex referred to as a “dogmatic consciousness” which usually requires “more than twenty years… under the guidance of an experienced spiritual father.”^[554] Fr. John dramatically departs from the approach taken by many of these online apologists and this is likely why they often misunderstand him or regard his teachings with skepticism.

There are then others who criticize Fr. John because he exposes, in the strongest of terms, a certain mentality that views Orthodoxy primarily as a religion, not of the kind which the Apostle James speaks of^[555], but rather a collection of truth claims accompanied by various external rituals that work almost “magically” without the need for a life of asceticism and struggle to acquire noetic prayer under an experienced spiritual father. There are those who primarily approach theology as an intellectual exercise and who see authority in the Church as a matter of academic accolades and/or ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy, without regard to patristic teaching on the spiritual presuppositions one must have for ordination. Furthermore, some clergy who have been ordained without the proper spiritual prerequisites may find Fr. John’s teaching to be threatening rather than humbling. His emphasis on the need for an experienced spiritual father, and not just any spiritual father, may sound threatening to priests who take on the role of spiritual father without the requisite spiritual experience or to those who are content to offer blind obedience to the first priest they become acquainted with. To those without noetic prayer, who also don’t have a spiritual father who has noetic prayer, Fr. John’s words regarding the necessity of every Christian acquiring noetic prayer for the purification of the heart may also seem an impossibly high standard.

Finally, among the critics of Romanides are converts from Western backgrounds who convert to Orthodoxy while maintaining a fictitious mythology regarding the pre-Schism West. Fr. John repeatedly affirmed in his teachings that there was no difference in theology and experience between the great Fathers of East and West. He was, however, very critical of the influence that St. Augustine later came to have on Western theology; that it took the West away from the patristic understanding of God and salvation. The West was in communion with the rest of the Church at least until 1054, the commonly accepted date of the Great Schism. However, the Schism was not an abrupt and sudden event but was the culmination of a long gradual departure of the West from a patristic understanding of God, theology, and salvation. This gradual departure coincided with the increased influence of, and emphasis on, St. Augustine’s teachings and a loss of familiarity with the majority of the Holy Fathers who wrote in Greek. To those who wish to maintain the fantasy that the West was perfectly Orthodox in every way until 1054, that everything taught and practiced in the West up until 1054 (or even after) was fully Orthodox and worthy of emulation, Romanides is seen as an enemy.

If Romanides did have some errors, however, why read him at all? Why not read only the Fathers? One should certainly not read Romanides rather than the saints and Fathers, rather, he should be read alongside them, and if he seems to contradict the consensus of the Holy Fathers in anything, then such teachings should be discussed with an experienced spiritual father who has internalized and embodied patristic teaching. Fr. John’s value is that he reformulates and communicates patristic teachings in a simple, bold, and direct way that forces his readers to reexamine their presuppositions that have been formed by modern day Western society. For many people today and in previous decades, Fr. John remains a unique bridge between academic theology and the neptic tradition of the Church. In his own life he experienced the tension between the academic study of theology and the direct knowledge of God which requires silence, hesychia, asceticism, and noetic prayer. He was a very gifted academic theologian, yet he also became acquainted with holy elders and strove to acquire their experience as best as he could. Having united academic theology with noetic prayer both experientially and in his teachings, he is an immense help to those interested in academic theology who wish to do the same. Today, most converts from the West seem to come to Orthodoxy through theological study and are interested in academic theology but have difficulty connecting to the neptic tradition of the Church. The teachings of the saints and holy elders on noetic prayer and theosis are even seen as entirely separate from, and unrelated to, the academic study of theology. Fr. John Romanides remains a reliable bridge to salvation for those who otherwise may have remained stuck approaching Orthodoxy only externally, intellectually, and morally in a way that may nevertheless fail to produce salvific spiritual fruit.

The teaching that “there is no similarity at all between what is created and what is uncreated” cuts to the very heart of this disconnect between academic theology and the neptic ascetic life. It is not merely a point of theory to be debated amongst intellectuals, it is an axiom that grounds one’s entire spiritual struggle in a stance of humility and the fear of God. It places in center focus “the one thing needful,”^[556] making us acutely aware of our spiritual poverty and our distance from realizing God’s will for us to become all flame, all light.^[557] Hesychia and noetic prayer are the only path by which human beings can ascend to knowledge of God and attain theosis.^[558] There is no other path. There is a great danger in thinking that one knows something of God simply by reading books but not living an analogous spiritual life, not purifying oneself of the passions or living in stillness and constant prayer and remembrance of God. There is also great danger in thinking that simply being a “moral person” is enough to acquire salvation. Moralism is a mentality that is so deeply rooted in the West, as is a belief that the answers to the greatest mysteries are available through the rational thought processes of the mind. We have a tendency to think of dogmatics as simply being a kind of divinely revealed philosophical system. The foundational presupposition for all knowledge, of any kind, is a life of asceticism and prayer, for God has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes.^[559] This revelation, the knowledge of God, is not revealed to the academic, but to those whose hearts have been purified and become capable of receiving the Holy Spirit. It is the pure in heart who shall see God.^[560] The dogmas of the Church are not a philosophy; their purpose is to guide man through a great struggle to purify his heart so that it can receive true, experiential revelation. This revelation, this sight of God, is not a revelation of concepts; it is communion with God’s uncreated life.

Fr. John Romanides stands in the 20^th century as a voice crying out in the spiritual wilderness of the last times, calling us back to the only way of life that can provide man with true knowledge of God. The kingdom of God lies within man’s own heart,^[561] not in philosophy. It can and will be found by those who go beyond the merely intellectual realm of the created world and set out on the only path that leads there; the path that has been trodden by prophets, apostles, ascetics, martyrs, and all of God’s friends since the foundation of the world. Christ offers man not a philosophy, but His own life, which gives man much more than satisfactory answers to the conundrums of the world, but peace which surpasses all understanding;^[562] eternal life in the Light of God.

^[1] Fr. John preferred to use the term “glorification” when he wrote and spoke in English, and for that word to be used in English translations of his work. “Glorification” is the biblical term for what is more commonly known amongst English-speaking Orthodox Christians today as “theosis”. The two words are synonymous.

^[2] Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, Empirical Dogmatics Of The Orthodox Church According To The Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides: Vol 1, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, pg. 17-22

^[3] Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou, “Father John Romanides and Modern Empirical Theologians”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3dJqnuZ3U (timestamp 24:07)

^[4] For a detailed biography of Fr. John Romanides, see pg. 25-93 of Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1

^[5] Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos, Church in the Making: An Apophatic Ecclesiology of Consubstantiality, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, trans. Norman Russel, pg. 82-83

^[6] Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, The Theological Works of Fr. John Romanides: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/10/theological-works-of-fr-john-romanides.html

^[7] Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou speaking at the “On the Eigth Ecumenical Council” Conference in Lake Guntersville, Alabama (March 14-16, 2024): (15:25-16:45 timestamp) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mTel8pFTXI&t=392s&ab_channel=TheOrthodoxEthos

^[8] Ibid.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 153

^[11] St. Symeon the New Theologian, taken from Writings From the Philokalia: On the Prayer of the Heart, trans. E. Kadloubovsky & G.E.H. Palmer,
Faber and Faber, pg. 135 (Practical and Theological Precepts)

^[12] Fr. Seraphim Rose, The Place of Blessed Augustine In The Orthodox Church, 3^rd Edition, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, pg. 85

^[13] Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, “I Know A Man In Christ”: Elder Sophrony the Hesychast and Theologian, Holy Monastery of the Birth of the Theotokos, pg. 150

^[14] St. John of Damascus, The Fathers of the Church Vol XXXVII, Ex Fontibus Company, trans. F.H. Chase Jr., pg. 12 (Philosophical Chapters, Chapter 3)

^[15] Ibid, pg. 11

^[16] Colossians 2:8

^[17] According to Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou, St. Paisios and Fr. John Romanides collaborated on a letter that St. Paisios prepared in 1969, see timestamp 46:40 “Father John Romanides and Modern Empirical Theologians”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3dJqnuZ3U

^[18] Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, Patristic and Scholastic Theology in Perspective Based On The Spoken Teachings of Fr. John Romanides, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, pg. 27

^[19] Psalm 118:164

^[20] Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 66

^[21] Ibid., pg. 48

^[22] St. Joseph the Hesychast, Letters & Poems, Vatopedi Monastery, pg. 353 (editor’s footnote #233)

^[23] Elder Aimilians of Simonopetra, quoted in Fr. John Romanides Resource Page, John Sanidopoulos blog:
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/08/fr-john-romanides-resource-page.html

^[24] Elder Ephraim of New Skete, talk given in 2021 titled ‘Concerning Father John Romanides’ [In Greek]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFVPgyxVdcI&feature=youtu.be

^[25] Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou, “Father John Romanides and Modern Empirical Theologians”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3dJqnuZ3U (timestamp 1:06)

^[26] Ibid., timestamp 16:48

^[27] The subtitles in the video simply say “catharsis”, however this Greek word is often translated into English as “purification”, and in this context that is what is being referred to.

^[28] The subtitles in the video say “enlightenment”, which could also be translated as “illumination”, which would be more accurate given the context.

^[29] Ibid., timestamp 12:06

^[30] Fr. George Florovsky quoted in: Father John Romanides: His Life and Legacy: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2021/11/father-john-romanides-his-life-and.html

^[31] Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, 3^rd Edition (2015), Penguin Books, pg. 114

^[32] Fr. Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/ways_russian_theology_florovsky.htm

^[33]Archbishop Basil Krivoshein, Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church, quoted in On The Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria, Uncut Mountain Press, pg. 270-271

^[34] St. Hilarion Troitsky, On the Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christian Communities: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/the-unity-of-the-church.aspx

^[35] Makary Bulgakov, History of the Russian Church (in Russian), 1890, t. XII, pg. 681

^[36] On The Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria, Uncut Mountain Press, pg. 267

^[37] Ibid., pg. 268

^[38] Ibid., pg. 259-267

^[39] Fr. Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/ways_russian_theology_florovsky.htm

^[40] On The Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria, Uncut Mountain Press, pg. 267

^[41] Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, Cambridge University Press, pg. 234

^[42] Kallistos Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule, Wipf & Stock, pg. 29

^[43] On The Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria, pg. 310

^[44] Fr. Leonid Kavelin, Elder Macarius of Optina, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, trans. Valentina V. Lyovina, pg. 184

^[45] St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Collected Works, Vol 4, pg. 466-467. Quoted in On The Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria, pg. 255

^[46] Ivan Kontzevitch, The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, trans. Olga Koshansky, pg. 265-266

^[47] St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Collected Works, Vol 4, pg. 466-467. Quoted in On The Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria, pg. 255

^[48] For resources on this see the ‘Optina Elders’ series published by St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, particularly the life of St. Macarius. For example, it is described in the life of St. Macarius how the practices of noetic prayer, eldership, and revelation of thoughts were largely unheard of in Russian monasteries in his day. See pg. 49-87 in Elder Macarius of Optina.

^[49] Kontzevitch, The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, pg. 271-279

^[50] Metropolitan Anthony Krapovitsky, On the Persecution Against the Russian Orthodox Church and Archbishop Hilarion Troitsky: https://orthochristian.com/126751.html

^[51] Ware, Eustratios Argenti, pg. 29

^[52] Ibid.

^[53] Ware, Eustratios Argenti, pg. 16-24

^[54] Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, trans. Fr. Peter Chamberas & Normal Russell, pg. 69. It should be noted that Yannaras fell into some serious dogmatic errors, and the reference here to his work does not constitute an endorsement of all of his views.

^[55] The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church (July), Holy Apostles Convent, 2^nd edition, pg. 623 (Jul. 14)

^[56] Orthodox Church in America, Lives of Saints entry for Saint Athansius Parios: https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2024/06/24/149033-saint-athanasius-parios

^[57] Fr. George Metallinos quoted in: The Revival of Political Hesychasm in Greek Orthodox Thought: A Study of the Hesychast Basis of the Thought of John S. Romanides and Christos Yannaras by Daniel Paul Payne, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, pg. 97

^[58] Fr. John Romanides, The Cure of the Neurobiological Sickness of Religion: https://romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.01.htm#s6

^[59] Richard Clogg, A Concise History of Greece, Cambridge University Press, 2^nd edition, pg. 2

^[60] Payne, The Revival of Political Hesychasm in Greek Orthodox Thought, pg. 99

^[61] Ibid., pg. 91

^[62] Clogg, A Concise History of Greece, pg. 33-37

^[63] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_of_Greece

^[64] Clogg, A Concise History of Greece, pg. 49

^[65] The Blight of “Bavarocracy” in the Church of Greece: https://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/ellada/vavarokratia1.htm

^[66] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Greece

^[67] Sotos Chondropoulos, Saint Nektarios: The Saint of our Century, ΚΑΙΝΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΓΗ Publications, pg. 100

^[68] Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West, pg. 207

^[69] Ibid., pg. 244

^[70] Ibid., pg. 246

^[71] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 65

^[72] Saint Paisios the Athonite, Holy Hesychasterion “Evangelist John the Theologian”, trans. Fr. Peter Chamberas, pg. 427-428

^[73] St. Paisios the Athonite quoted in Saint Paisios of Mount Athos Spiritual Counsels Volume 1: With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man, Holy Hesychasterion “Evangelist John the Theologian”, trans. Cornelia Tdsakiridou & Maria Spanou, pg. 336-337

^[74] Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West, pg. 251

^[75] St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and St. Makarios of Corinth, The Philokalia: Volume 1, trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard & Kallistos Ware, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1979, pg. 333 (St. Anthony the Great, On the Character of Men and on the Virtuous Life, #26).

^[76] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 111-112

^[77] Ibid., pg. 127

^[78] Archimandrite Athanasios Mitilinaios, Revelation Vol II: The Seven Seals, Zoe Press, pg. 7-8

^[79] Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, The Person in the Orthodox Tradition, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 2^nd edition, pg. 152

^[80] Vlachos, The Theological Works of Fr. John Romanides

^[81] St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and St. Makarios of Corinth, The Philokalia: Volume 3, trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard & Kalistos Ware, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1984, pg. 91-92, 154 (St. Peter of Damaskos, A Treasury of Divine Knowledge, “The Seven Forms of Bodily Discipline,” “Discrimination”).

^[82] St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and St. Makarios of Corinth, The Philokalia: Volume 4, trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kalistos Ware, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1995, pg. 216 (St. Gregory of Sinai, On Commandments and Doctrines, #22).

^[83] Ibid., pg. 116 (St. Mark the Ascetic, On the Spiritual Law, #85-86).

^[84] In this translation produced by a heterodox scholar, the Greek word translated here as “mind” is “nous”. It is also sometimes translated as “intellect” as well. Translating it thus gives a misleading impression as to what is being said, and so we have opted to change translations cited in the present work to be “nous” so as to better reflect the intended meaning. Similarly, the Greek word “theoria” is often translated as “contemplation”, and so we have rendered such instances simply as “theoria”. See glossary for definitions of nous and theoria.

^[85] John 14:26

^[86] Jeremiah 31:31, 33

^[87] Jeremiah 31:34

^[88] 2^nd Corinthians 3:3

^[89] St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 1.1:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200101.htm

^[90] The Greek word translated here as “contemplation” is “theoria”. See glossary for a definition of theoria.

^[91] Luke 8:10

^[92] St. Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses, Volume 2, trans. Alexander Golitzin. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996, pg. 113-115 (Ninth Ethical Discourse, §1).

^[93] St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Revised Edition, 2012, pg. 180 (Step 25)

^[94] “Orthodox Life,” Vol. 26, No.3, ‘76; “The Orthodox Word,” Vol. 11, No. 3, ‘75; Stand Fast in the Truth; and Vol; II of “The Works of Archbishop Averky”

^[95] Jean-Claude Larchet, What Is Theology?, Holy Trinity Seminary Press, pg. 20

^[96] Jeremiah 23:1-2, 16, 21

^[97] Ezekiel 13:9-10

^[98] Deuteronomy 13:1-6

^[99] Acts 20:29-30

^[100] Galatians 1:8

^[101] 2^nd Corinthians 11:4, 13-14

^[102] 2^nd Peter 2:1-2

^[103] 1^st John 4:1

^[104] Jude 3

^[105] Apostolic Constitutions, Book 2, Section 3.19:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07152.htm

^[106] St. Daniel of Katounakia quoted in: The Angel Life: A Vision of Orthodox Monasticism, St. Nilus Skete, 2021, pg. 112

^[107] St. Basil the Great quoted in Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Uncut Mountain Press, 1st edition, pg. 180-181

^[108] Ibid., pg. 178

^[109] St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians (Chapter 16-17):
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

^[110] St. John Chrysostom quoted in Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ, pg. 182

^[111] Matthew 16:19

^[112] John 20:22-23

^[113] St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle I.36:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sttheo_canon.aspx

^[114] Jeremiah 10:25

^[115] Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 16:3

^[116] 2^nd Timothy 2:9

^[117] St. Theodore the Studite, Letter to Magister Theoctistus (Epistle I.24), PG 985ABC: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sttheo_canon.aspx

^[118] The Philokalia: Volume 4, pg. 30-31 (St. Symeon the New Theologian, Practical and Theological Texts, #33).

^[119] St. Meletios the Confessor quoted in Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ, pg. 178

^[120] A. Edward Siencienski, Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority in Orthodox Christian History:
https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/holy-disobedience-resistance-to-secular-and-ecclesiastical-authority-in-orthodox-christian-history

^[121] Relatio Motionis, 4 (Eng. trans: Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, eds., Maximus the Confessor and His Companions: Documents from Exile [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002], pg. 63).

^[122] Ibid.

^[123] Theodore the Studite, Epistle I.24 to Magister Theoctistus (PG 99: 985) (Eng. trans: Patrick Henry, Theodore of Studios: Byzantine Churchman [Michigan: UMI, 1968], pg. 118-119)

^[124] Theodore the Studite, Epistle I. 28 to Monk Basil (PG 997, 1001).

^[125] Siencienski, Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority in Orthodox Christian History

^[126] St. Mark of Ephesus quoted in: Ivan N. Ostroumov, The History of the Council of Florence, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971, pg. 159-160)

^[127] Siencienski, Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority in Orthodox Christian History

^[128] Fr. Georges Florovsky, The Catholicity of the Church, Theological Articles of Fr. George Florovsky 4: On the Church: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/theology_church_florovsky_e.htm#_Toc102874718

^[129] St. Dionysios the Areopagite, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 508B. Taken from “Pseudo-Dionysios: The Complete Works”, Paulist Press, trans. Colm Luibheid, pg. 238. The publisher refers to the author of this work as “Pseudo-Dionysios”, i.e. that the author is not actually St. Dionysios the Areopagite. This is a viewpoint of modern liberal scholarship that is rejected by Holy Tradition. According to the witness of the Orthodox Church, St. Dionysios is the author.

^[130] Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, Orthodox Psychotherapy, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1^st edition, pg. 74-75

^[131] Archbishop Basil Krivocheine, In The Light of Christ, Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, trans. Anthony Gythiel, pg. 91

^[132] St. Symeon the New Theologian quoted in In The Light of Christ, pg. 92

^[133] Ibid., pg. 96

^[134] Ibid., pg. 93

^[135] Ibid., pg. 95

^[136] Ibid., pg. 96

^[137] Ibid., pg. 101

^[138]Vlachos, Orthodox Psychotherapy, pg. 78

^[139] 2^nd Timothy 2:15. This verse is also referenced in a prayer during the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom where the priest offers prayers for the Bishop; that he might rightly divide the word of truth. The fact that the Church prays for this should make it obvious that it is therefore possible for a Bishop to not rightly divide the word of truth.

^[140] Examples of famous condemned heretics who were Orthodox bishops: Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, Paul of Samosata, Pope Vigilius, Pope Honorius I, Patriarch Dioscorus I of Alexandria, Eunomius of Cyzicus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, the 338 bishops who participated in the iconoclast Council of Hieria.

^[141] Examples of famous condemned heretics who were Orthodox priests: Arius, Eutyches, Novatian. Also noteworthy is that the Nicolaite sect mentioned in Revelation 2:6 & 2:14-16 was started by Nicolas the Deacon, who was one of the seven deacons ordained in Acts 6:1-6.

^[142] Fr. George Metallinos, Authority is Experience: https://web.archive.org/web/20210315091231/https://pemptousia.com/2017/03/authority-is-experience/

^[143] St. Symeon the New Theologian quoted in: Krivocheine, In The Light of Christ, pg. 176

^[144] St. Sophrony of Essex quoted in “I Know A Man in Christ”: Elder Sophrony the Hesychast and Theologian, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, pg. 254

^[145] The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church (July), pg. 710-711 (Jul. 18)

^[146] Matthew 5:16, 13:43

^[147] Mark 16:17

^[148] John 10:27

^[149] Matthew 7:16

^[150] Galatians 5:22

^[151] 1^st Corinthians 12:8-11

^[152] Matthew 5:14-15

^[153] St. Symeon the New Theologian, Letter 1: On Confession, translated from Greek PG 95.283-304 by Fr. Steven Ritter: http://www.ldysinger.com/@texts2/1022_sym-nt/03_sym-let1_conf.htm
For an alternative translation see The Epistles of St Symeon the New Theologian, Oxford University Press, trans. H. J. M Turner, 2009, pg. 26-70

^[154] Matthew 10:40

^[155] Mark 13:37

^[156] Matthew 13:11

^[157] St. Symeon the New Theologian, The Epistles of St Symeon the New Theologian, Oxford University Press, trans. H. J. M Turner, 2009, pg. 89-97 (Epistle 3, #85-200)

^[158] Matthew 10:40 & Luke 10:16

^[159] Matthew 7:15

^[160] Matthew 7:16

^[161] The Epistles of St Symeon the New Theologian, pg. 101-105 (Epistle 3, #265-385)

^[162] St. Sophrony of Essex, Saint Silouan the Athonite, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pg. 185-187.

^[163] Fr. John Romanides quoted in: Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church According to the Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides Vol. 2, pg. 400-402.

^[164] Romans 1:20

^[165] Jay Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted: https://markhackard.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/analogy-of-being-atheism-the-logoi-romanides-refuted/

^[166] My Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, pg. 691

^[167] St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and St. Makarios of Corinth, The Philokalia: Volume 2, trans. Philip Sherrard & Kalistos Ware, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1981, pg. 216 (St. Maximos the Confessor, Second Century on Love, #27).

^[168] St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and St. Makarios of Corinth, The Philokalia: Volume 2, trans. Philip Sherrard & Kalistos Ware, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1979, pg. 61-62 (St. Evagrios the Solitary, On Prayer: 151 Texts, #52)

^[169] My Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, pg. 693-694

^[170] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 178

^[171] Ibid., pg. 164

^[172] Ibid., pg. 255

^[173] Genesis 4:1

^[174] Genesis 24:16

^[175] Luke 1:34

^[176] St. Basil the Great, Letter 235:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202235.htm

^[177] Publisher’s footnote: “Dispensation” is the term commonly used for the Incarnation by the Church Fathers

^[178] St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, trans. F.H. Chase Jr., amended, pg. 8-9 (Book 1, Chapter 2)

^[179] St. Gregory the Theologian, The Five Theological Orations, trans. C. G. Browne and J. E. Swallow, amended. Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, pg. 15-16 (Second Theological Oration, 3-4.).

^[180] Schaff, Philip (Ed.) and Wace, Henry (Ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 4. Translated by Archibald Robertson. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1892. Pg. 5 (St. Athanasios the Great, Against Heathens, Part I, §2).

^[181] St. Maximos the Confessor, The Fathers of the Church Volume 146: On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture & the Responses to Thallasios, The Catholic University of America Press, pg. 548 (Responses 65.35)

^[182] St. Gregory the Theologian, The Five Theological Orations, pg. 14 (Second Theological Oration)

^[183] St. Symeon the New Theologian, The Practical and Theological Chapters & The Three Theological Discourses, trans. Paul McGuckin, Cistercian Publications, 1982, pg. 120 (First Theological Discourse, 18-19)

^[184] St. Isaac the Syrian, The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, pg. 390-395

^[185] That is, the divine uncreated energies of God

^[186] The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, pg. 395-401

^[187] St. Justin Popovich, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, trans. Fr. Asterios Gerostergios, pg. 119

^[188] Ibid., pg. 121-122

^[189] Ibid., pg. 131

^[190] The English translation here repeatedly uses the word “intellect”, but what is being spoken of is the nous, not man’s rational faculty.

^[191] Ibid., pg. 135-138

^[192] Matthew 18:3

^[193] Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pg. 139-141

^[194] 1^st Corinthians 13:9-10

^[195] Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pg. 143

^[196] 1^st Corinthians 8:1

^[197] Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pg. 143-144

^[198] 1^st Corinthians 2:9

^[199] Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pg. 148-152

^[200] Ibid., pg. 160

^[201] Ibid., pg. 163-168

^[202] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua Vol I, trans. Fr. Maximos Constas, Harvard University Press, pg. 155-157 (Ambiguum 10:4)

^[203] St. Athanasios Parios quoted in: Constantine Cavarnos, Modern Orthodox Saints Vol. 15: Saint Athansios Parios, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2006, pg. 79
see also: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/06/excerpts-from-saint-athanasios-parios.html

^[204] Ibid., pg. 78-79

^[205] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 178

^[206] Ibid., pg. 164

^[207] Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 97

^[208] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 98

^[209] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 262-263

^[210] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, Vol I, pg. 93 (Ambiguum 7:12)

^[211] Saint Gregory of Nyssa Collection, Aeterna Press, pg. 316 (Against Eunomius, Book III, §5).

^[212] Constantine Cavarnos, Byzantine Thought and Art, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2^nd edition, 2000, pg. 14

^[213] G.W.H Lampe (editor), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1961, pg. 407-408

^[214] St. Gregory the Theologian, The Five Theological Orations, pg. 12 (First Theological Oration)

^[215] The Triodion, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, pg. 162 (The Anathemas of the Sunday of Orthodoxy). See also: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/synodicon-of-orthodoxy.html

^[216] Saint Gregory of Nyssa Collection, Aeterna Press, pg. 181-184 (Against Eunomius, Book I, §26)

^[217] 2^nd Corinthians 12:2-4

^[218] 1^st Corinthians 2:9

^[219] The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, pg. 147-148 (Homily #4.34)

^[220] St. Basil the Great, Letter 235: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202235.htm

^[221] St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, trans. F.H. Chase Jr., amended, pg. 7-8 (Book 1, Chapter 1)

^[222] St. John of Damascus, The Fathers of the Church Vol XXXVII, pg. 163 (On Heresies, Chapter 103)

^[223] St. Gregory the Theologian, The Five Theological Orations, pg. 16-21 (Second Theological Oration)

^[224] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua Vol I, pg. 155-157 (Ambigua 10.4)

^[225] Jay Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted: https://markhackard.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/analogy-of-being-atheism-the-logoi-romanides-refuted/

^[226] Citation from Lossky: St. John of Damascus, Writings: Orthodox Faith, FC 37, pg. 205

^[227] Vladimir Lossky, Dogmatic Theology: Creation, God’s Image in Man, & the Redeeming Work of the Trinity, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pg. 69-73

^[228] Exodus 33:17

^[229] 2^nd Timothy 2:19

^[230] Matthew 7:23

^[231] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, Vol I, pg. 107-109 (Ambiguum 7:24)

^[232] St. Gregory the Theologian, The Five Theological Orations, pg. 12 (First Theological Oration)

^[233] Ibid., pg. 78 (Fourth Theological Oration)

^[234] Fr. Melchisedec Toronen, Union and Distinction in the Thought of St. Maximos the Confessor, Oxford University Press, pg. 129

^[235] Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos, A Eucharistic Ontology: Maximus the Confessor’s Eschatological Ontology of Being as Dialogical Reciprocity, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, pg. 60

^[236] Ibid., pg. 65

^[237] Vlachos, The Person in the Orthodox Tradition, pg. 216

^[238] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[239] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, Vol I, pg. 275-277 (Ambiguum 10:83)

^[240] Ibid., pg. 313-315 (Ambiguum 10:101)

^[241] Ibid., pg. 385 (Ambiguum 17:4)

^[242] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, Vol II, trans. Fr. Maximos Constas, Harvard University Press, pg. 117-119 (Ambiguum 41:11), here St. Maximos is quoting St. Dionysios the Areopagite’s On The Divine Names, from the chapter “Perfect and the One”

^[243] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[244] Fr. John Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, Zephyr Publishing, trans. George S. Gabriel, pg. 59

^[245] Ibid.

^[246] Fr. John Romanides, Notes On The Palamite Controversy: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.15.en.notes_on_the_palamite_controversy.01.htm

^[247] 1^st Corinthians 13:12

^[248] St. Gregory the Theologian, The Five Theological Orations, pg. 28-29 (Second Theological Oration, 17).

^[249] 2^nd Corinthians 12:4

^[250] St. Symeon the New Theologian, The Practical and Theological Chapters & The Three Theological Discourses, pg. 140 (Third Theological Discourse, 8).

^[251] St. Dionysios the Areopagite, On Divine Names, trans. C. E. Rolt, amended., Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, pg. 5, 10 (Chapter 1: 3, 5).

^[252] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, Vol I, pg. 93 (Ambiguum 7.12)

^[253] Ibid., pg. 99-101 (Ambiguum 7.19)

^[254] Ibid., pg. 101-102 (Ambiguum 7.20)

^[255] Ibid., pg. 95-97 (Ambiguum 7.16)

^[256] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[257] Fr John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 263

^[258]St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, Paulist Press, pg. 165-166.

^[259] St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and St. Makarios of Corinth, The Philokalia: Volume 2, trans. Philip Sherrard & Kalistos Ware, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1979, pg. 58 (St. Evagrios the Solitary, On Prayer: 151 Texts, #4)

^[260] St. Symeon the New Theologian, The Practical and Theological Chapters & Three Theological Discourses, Cistercian Publications, pg. 132 [Cf. St. Basil the Great, Adversus Eunomium 1:14]

^[261] St. Dionysios the Areopagite, The Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, trans. C. E. Rolt, amended, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, pg. 3

^[262] Ibid., pg. 3-4

^[263] Ibid., pg. 5-6

^[264] Ibid., pg. 7

^[265] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[266] Translator’s footnote: “It is not something, neither is it any kind of degree; it is not mind; it is not soul; it is not moved, nor again does it remain still; it is neither in space nor in time; it is in itself of one kind, or rather without kind being before all kind, before movement, before stillness, for all these things concern being and make it many.” Vladimir Lossky quoting St. Dionysios the Areopagite, in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, pg. 30

^[267] Fr. John Romanides, Patristic Theology: The University Lectures of Fr. John Romanides, 2^nd Edition, Uncut Mountain Press, pg. 109-112

^[268] The Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, pg. 9-10

^[269] Ibid. pg. 10-11

^[270] Ibid., pg. 11-13

^[271] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[272] The Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, pg. 15

^[273] Christos Yannaras, Person and Eros, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, pg. 211-220.

^[274] St. Dionysios the Areopagite, “Pseudo-Dionysios: The Complete Works” (On The Celestial Hierarchy), pg. 147-152 (Chpt 2, 136D-144C)

^[275] Romans 1:25

^[276] 2^nd Corinthians 3:6

^[277] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, Vol I, pg. 197-201 (Ambiguum 10:32)

^[278] St. Gregory Palamas, The Homilies, trans. Christopher Veniamin, Mount Thabor Publishing, pg. 438 (Homily #53, §52).

^[279] St. Dimitru Staniloe, Orthodox Spirituality, St. Tikhon’s Monastery Press, pg. 27-28

^[280] The Triodion, pg. 162

^[281] St. Symeon the New Theologian, Hymns of Divine Love, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, trans. G. Maloney, amended, pg. 365-366

^[282] See for verses in the New Testament where epignosis is used:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1922.htm

^[283] Luke 17:20

^[284] St. Sophrony of Essex, Saint Silouan the Athonite, pg. 189

^[285] John 16:12

^[286] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 255

^[287] footnote from the translator: “One could also say, ‘What is the ontological approach to theology?’, since the terms ‘metaphysical’ and ‘ontological’ have been largely synonymous since the German rationalist Christian Wolff used the word ‘ontology’ in the 18^th century.”

^[288] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 99-100

^[289] St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, trans. Fr. Peter Chamberas, Newfound Publishing, pg. 204 (2^nd Triad, 3^rd Discourse, no. 8)

^[290] A definition of hesychia from the glossary of My Elder Joseph the Hesychast by Elder Ephraim of Arizona: “Hesychia is the ascetical practice of noetic stillness linked with watchfulness and deepened by the unceasing Jesus prayer. Hesychia is an undisturbed nous and a heart with peace, freed from thoughts, passions, and from influences of the environment. It is dwelling in God. The only way for man to achieve theosis is through hesychia. External stillness can help in achieving hesychia.”

^[291] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, Vol I, pg. 95-97 (Ambiguum 7:16)

^[292] St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, pg. 325-326 (3^rd Triad, 2^nd Discourse, no. 25)

^[293] St. Dionysios the Areopagite, The Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, pg. 124

^[294] John 17:3

^[295] 1^st John 4:12

^[296] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 102

^[297] Ibid., pg. 98

^[298] Ibid., pg. 103

^[299] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[300] Metallinos, Authority is Experience

^[301] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 262-263

^[302] St. Cleopa of Sihastria, recording title “Elder Cleopa – On Prayer”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOGXdLoNl2w&ab_channel=ioancasianion (timestamp 5:48)

^[303] Igumen Chariton of Valamo, The Art of Prayer, trans. E. Kadloubovsky & E. M. Palmer, Faber and Faber, 1997, pg. 64-74

^[304]The Philokalia: Volume 4, pg. 142 (St. Peter of Damaskos, Book I: A Treasury of Divine Knowledge, The Eighth Stage of Contemplation)

^[305] The Philokalia: Volume 2, pg. 54 (St. Maximos the Confessor, First Century on Love)

^[306] Fr. Georges Florovsky, The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. III: Creation and Redemption, Nordland Publishing Company, 1976, pg. 63 (Chapter III: Creation and Creaturehood): https://jbburnett.com/resources/florovsky/3/florovsky_3-3-creation.pdf

^[307] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 153

^[308] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 253

^[309] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[310] Saint Gregory of Nyssa Collection, pg. 267 (Against Eunomius Book 2, Section 11)

^[311] St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, trans. F.H. Chase Jr., amended, pg. 39 (Book 1, Chapter 12)

^[312] St. Gregory the Theologian, Orations XXXVII.4: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310237.htm

^[313] St. Basil the Great, Letter 234:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202234.htm

^[314] St. Gregory of Nyssa quoted in: Florovsky, The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. III: Creation and Redemption, pg. 65 (see footnote 61 in Chapter III: Creation and Creaturehood)

^[315] Ibid.

^[316] St. Basil the Great, Letter 234

^[317] Genesis 1:26

^[318] Lossky, Dogmatic Theology, pg. 86-87

^[319] Citation from Lossky: De hominis opificio, XVI, P.G., t.44, 184 AC, pg. 209

^[320] Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pg. 115-119

^[321] St. Sophrony of Essex, Saint Silouan the Athonite, pg. 174-175

^[322] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 111-112

^[323] Fr. John Romanides, The Sickness of Religion and Its Orthodox Cure: www.oodegr.com/english/psyxotherap/Romanides_sickness_of_religion.htm

^[324] St. Joseph the Hesychast, quoted in: Vlachos, Patristic and Scholastic Theology in Perspective, pg. 35

^[325] Monastic Wisdom: The Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, 1^st Edition, pg. 138

^[326] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[327] Monastic Wisdom: The Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast, pg. 81

^[328] Ibid., pg. 44-45

^[329] St. Paisios the Athonite, Epistles, Holy Monastery “Evangelist John the Theologian”, pg. 149-150

^[330] Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pg. 165-166

^[331] https://stanthonysmonastery.org/collections/sagom-books/sagom-press

^[332] Fr. John Romanides quoted in: Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos, Church in the Making: An Apophatic Ecclesiology of Consubstantiality, pg. 85

^[333] Archimandrite Ephraim Triandaphillopoulos, Noetic Prayer as the Basis of Mission and the Struggle Against Heresy, Uncut Mountain Press, pg. 30

^[334] St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, The Arena, Holy Trinity Seminary Press, 2^nd Edition, pg. 78-79

^[335] St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, Paulist Press, trans. Nicholas Gendle, pg. 42-43

^[336] St. Sophrony of Essex, Saint Silouan the Athonite, pg. 47

^[337] Citation from A Handbook of Spiritual Counsels: St. Basil the Great, Commentary on Psalm 1

^[338] St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, Paulist Press, pg. 154-156

^[339] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 144-145

^[340] St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, pg. 154

^[341] Ibid., pg. 168

^[342] St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, The Arena, pg. 118

^[343] Ibid., p. 140.

^[344] Orthodox Church in America, Life of St. Ignatius of Antioch: https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2014/12/20/103594-hieromartyr-ignatius-the-god-bearer-bishop-of-antioch

^[345] Prayer before the Gospel from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: https://www.orthodox.net/services/sluzebnic-chrysostom.pdf

^[346] The Second Litany of the Faithful from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Ibid.

^[347] Ectenia for the Ailing from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Ibid.

^[348] Akathist to Our Savior Jesus Christ: https://www.akathists.com/our-savior-jesus-christ/all-merciful-lord-physician/

^[349] Prayer of St. Macarius the Great in the Evening Prayers from Holy Trinity Monastery Prayerbook, “the Jordanville Prayer Book”.

^[350] Ibid., Prayer of St. Antiochus

^[351] Prayers Before Receiving Holy Communion: https://orthodoxprayer.org/Communion_Prayers.html

^[352] Prayers after Receiving Holy Communion: https://www.orthodox.net/services/sluzebnic-chrysostom.pdf

^[353] Vespers on the Sunday of the Paralytic: http://www.st-sergius.org/services/pent/40.pdf

^[354] Canon of Matins on the Sunday of the Paralytic: http://www.st-sergius.org/services/pent/40.pdf

^[355] Canon of Matins on Mid-Pentecost Thursday: http://www.st-sergius.org/services/services103.html

^[356] Canon of Matins to St. John of the Ladder: http://www.st-sergius.org/services/Emenaion/03-30.pdf

^[357] Vespers for Sts. Cosmas and Damian: http://www.st-sergius.org/services/Emenaion/07-01.pdf

^[358] Canon of Matins to Sts. Cosmas and Damian: http://www.st-sergius.org/services/Emenaion/07-01.pdf

^[359] Canon of Matins to St. Panteleimon: http://www.st-sergius.org/services/Emenaion/07-27A.pdf

^[360] Canons of the Council of Trullo: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

^[361]St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and St. Makarios of Corinth, The Philokalia: Volume 2, trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard & Kalistos Ware, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1979, pg. 73 (St. Maximos the Confessor, Four Centuries on Love, 2^nd Century, #44)

^[362] St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, pg. 250

^[363] Romanides, The Sickness of Religion and Its Cure

^[364] St. Cleopa of Sihastria, recording titled “Elder Cleopa – On Prayer”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOGXdLoNl2w&ab_channel=ioancasianion (timestamp 4:20-4:45)

^[365] Meda, Karuna. 2022. “The Heart’s ‘Little Brain.’” Thomas Jefferson University. April 19, 2022. https://research.jefferson.edu/2022-magazine/the-hearts-little-brain.html.

^[366] “Chapter 01: Heart-Brain Communication.” Science of the Heart: Exploring the Role of the Heart in Human Performance. 2019. HeartMath Institute. April 19, 2019. https://www.heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/heart-brain-communication/.

^[367] Zappaterra, M.W., Lehtinen, M.K. The cerebrospinal fluid: regulator of neurogenesis, behavior, and beyond. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 69, 2863–2878 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-012-0957-x.

^[368] Bjorefeldt A, Illes S, Zetterberg H and Hanse E (2018) Neuromodulation via the Cerebrospinal Fluid: Insights from Recent in Vitro Studies. Front. Neural Circuits 12:5. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2018.00005.

^[369] Lovelace, J.W., Ma, J., Yadav, S. et al. Vagal sensory neurons mediate the Bezold–Jarisch reflex and induce syncope. Nature 623, 387–396 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06680-7.

^[370] Capilupi MJ, Kerath SM, Becker LB. Vagus Nerve Stimulation and the Cardiovascular System. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020 Feb 3;10(2):a034173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a034173. PMID: 31109966; PMCID: PMC6996447.

^[371] Joshi et. al. How Do Abnormalities in the Cerebrospinal Fluid Impact Neuropsychology with Progressing Age?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35400348/

^[372] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 181

^[373] Jay Dyer, Fr Romanides, John the Pilgrim & Quackodoxy References:
https://jaysanalysis.com/2022/07/25/fr-romanides-john-the-pilgrim-quackodoxy-references/

^[374] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[375] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 110

^[376] St. Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, Vol I, pg. 101 (Ambiguum 7:19)

^[377] Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, pg. 33-34. The citation of St. Gregory that Lossky provides is:
‘De Vita Moysis’, P.G., XLIV, 377 B., new edition by J. Danielou, S.J., Series Sources chretiennes (Paris 1955), p. 82. ‘Con. Eunom.’, III, P.G., XLV, 604 B-D; XII

^[378] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 110

^[379] Andrew J. Sopko, Prophet of Roman Orthodoxy: The Theology of John Romanides, Synaxaris Press, 2017, pg. 300-304

^[380] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 110-111

^[381] Romanides, The Cure of the Neurobiological Sickness of Religion

^[382] Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica, Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, pg. 148

^[383] St. Justin Popovich, Man and God Man, Sebastian Press, pg. 15-16

^[384] Archimandrite Athanasios Mitilinaios, Revelation Vol I: The Seven Golden Lampstands, Zoe Press, trans. Constantine Zalalas, 2^nd edition, 2016, pg. 60

^[385] Ibid., pg. 93

^[386] Fr. Georges Florovsky, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation, “The Christian East” Journal, Vol. XIII No. 2 (pages 49–64) 1932.

^[387] Romanides, The Cure Of the Neurobiological Sickness of Religion

^[388] Ibid.

^[389] “In the fire of revelation on the final day, the deeds of each will be tested by fire as Paul says. If what one has built up for himself is a work of incorruptibility, it will remain incorruptible in the midst of the fire and not only will it not be burned up, but it will be made radiant, totally purified of the perhaps small amount of filth” – St. Nikitas Stithatos (On Spiritual Knowledge) quoted in The Philokalia, Volume 4, pg. 165

^[390] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 35-40

^[391] Catalogue of the Heretical Teachings of Fr. John Romanides: https://www.scribd.com/document/554254625/Heresies-of-Romanides

^[392] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 100-101

^[393] Ibid.

^[394] The Triodion, pg. 162

^[395] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 100-101

^[396] Ibid., pg. 102

^[397] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[398] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 101-102

^[399] 1^st Corinthians 13:9-10

^[400] St. Justin Popovich, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pg. 143

^[401] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[402] Fr. John Romanides, The Sickness of Religion and Its Orthodox Cure: http://www.oodegr.com/english/psyxotherap/Romanides_sickness_of_religion.htm

^[403] Fr. George Metallinos, Fabrications About Prof John S. Romanides by Capuchino Priest Ianni Spiteri: http://www.romanity.org/mir/me02en.htm

^[404] Ibid.

^[405] Fr. John Romanides, The Romiosini of 1821 and the Great Powers: http://www.romanity.org/mir/me02en.htm

^[406] “for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:” – Acts 17:23. Was St. Paul a pagan based on this statement? Clearly not.

^[407] St. Basil the Great, Address To Young Men On The Right Use Of Greek Literature: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/basil_greek_literature.htm

^[408] St. Paisios of Mount Athos, Spiritual Counsels III: Spiritual Struggle, 1^st edition, Holy Monastery of John the Evangelist, pg. 29-30

^[409] St. Paisios of Mount Athos quoted in: Athanasios Rakovalis, Talks with Father Paisios, Orthodox Kypseli Publications, 1^st edition, pg. 83

^[410] Romanides, Patristic Theology, pg. 140

^[411] Ibid., pg. 141

^[412] Ibid., pg. 143-145

^[413] NTFU News, ‘Was Fr. John Romanides An Ecumenist? Yes!’: https://nftu.net/fr-john-romanides-ecumenist-yes/

^[414] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[415] Ibid.

^[416] St. Justin Popovich, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pg. 169

^[417] Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, Holy Mountain: Ecumenism is Dominated by Unclean Spirit: https://orthochristian.com/93492.html

^[418] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 248

^[419] Ibid., pg. 379

^[420] Ibid., pg. 385

^[421] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 378

^[422] Romanides, The Cure of the Neurobiological Sickness of Religion

^[423] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 377

^[424] Ibid., pg. 381

^[425] The Orthodox Word, Issue no. 92, 1980, Vol.16, no. 3, pg. 130

^[426]“Father John Romanides and Modern Empirical Theologians”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3dJqnuZ3U (timestamp 44:14)

^[427] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 71

^[428]Fr. John Romanides’ Encounter with the Zoe Brotherhood:
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/12/yesterday-i-made-post-prophetic-letter.html

^[429] Fr. John Romanides, A Protestant Dictatorship Via the Constitution of the W.C.C: https://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.27.en.Constitution_of_WCC_and_Protestant_Dictatorship.htm

^[430] Fr. John Romanides, A Critique of the Balamand Agreement: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frjr_balamand.aspx

^[431] Fr. John Romanides, The Sickness of Religion and Its Cure

^[432] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[433] See the book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr. Seraphim Rose

^[434] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[435] “She married Savas Romanides and they called their first child John…after her tonsure as a nun she lived to an even greater degree the monastic life that she so loved and in whose atmosphere she was already living. She acquired the gift of noetic prayer…Elder Paisios commented, ‘Gerondissa Evlambia has spiritual television’…Father Paisios was asked by one of the sisters about the state of Gerondissa Evlambia’s soul and he replied, ‘Gerondissa Evlambia is fine where she is. She departed like a twelve-year-old girl. She is very well.’” – Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 30

^[436] St. Paisios the Athonite, The Athonite Letter on Ecumenism:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/elder-paisios-the-athonite-letter-on-ecumenism.aspx

^[437] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 55

^[438] Vladimir Moss, A Critical Examination of the Theology of Fr. John Romanides, 2018, pg. 26

^[439] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 184

^[440] Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 184

^[441] Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, And Early Man, 2^nd edition, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, pg. 233-234

^[442]Sts. Agapius and Nicodemus, The Rudder (Pedalion), 1957, The Orthodox Christian Education Society, trans. D. Cummings, pg. 605-706

^[443] The English translation of the Rudder used here has “renaissance” rather than “regeneration”, which is not as accurate.

^[444] Romans 5:12

^[445] The Rudder (Pedalion), pg. 688

^[446] Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, pg. 33-34

^[447] Deuteronomy 24:18

^[448] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, P.G. 74, 788-789. Quoted in The Ancestral Sin, pg. 33-34.

^[449] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 184

^[450] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, P.G. 74, 781-783. Quoted in The Ancestral Sin, pg. 100.

^[451] St. John Chrysostom, 10^th Homily on Romans: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111/npnf111.vii.xii.html

^[452] St. Symeon the New Theologian, Hymns of Divine Love, pg. 369

^[453] Psalm 71:18

^[454] St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instructions, The Newman Press, 1962, pg. 57

^[455] St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, pg. 60 (Homily 4).

^[456] St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants’ Early Deaths: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.ix.iii.html#fnf_ix.iii-p27.1

^[457] St. Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I, Chapter 67): https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

^[458] Romans 5:16

^[459] Romans 5:18

^[460] Ibid., Chapter 21: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

^[461] St. Justin Popovich, Original Sin, Its Causes and Consequences [in Russian]:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Iustin_Popovich/pervorodnyj_greh/

^[462] The Greek word for the Mother of God, which literally translated into English is “Birth-Giver of God”

^[463]Ineffabilis Deus: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm

^[464] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg.184

^[465] The Menaion Vol III (November), Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2005, pg. 148 (Stichera 7 of Great Vespers for the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple)

^[466] Ibid., pg. 152 (Second Canon at Matins, Ode 3, St. Basil the Great)

^[467] Ibid.

^[468] St. Maximos the Confessor, The Life of the Theotokos, St. George Monastery, 2020, pg. 16

^[469] St. Gregory Palamas, The Homilies, Mount Thabor Publishing, trans. Christopher Veniamin, pg. 412 (Entry of the Theotokos into the Holy of Holies I)

^[470] St. Paisios lived ascetically on Mt Sinai, at the ascetic dwelling of Saints Episteme and Galaction, from 1962 to 1964.

^[471] St. Paisios the Athonite, Spiritual Counsels Book IV: Family Life, Holy Monastery of St. John the Evangelist, Souroti, Thessaloniki, pg. 65-66

^[472] Genesis 3:19

^[473] Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, pg. 161-162

^[474] Ibid., pp. 146-147

^[475] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 89

^[476] Fr. John Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, Holy Cross Press, pg. 60-61

^[477] Ibid., pg. 62

^[478] On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria, pg. 179-180

^[479] Fr. Michael Azkoul, The Influence of Augustine of Hippo on the Orthodox Church, The Edwin Mellen Press, pg. 56

^[480] Ibid., pg. 56-57

^[481] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Patristic and Scholastic Theology in Perspective, pg. 263-264

^[482] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 237

^[483] Ibid., pg. 286

^[484] St. Photios the Great quoted in The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church, pg. 66

^[485] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Patristic and Scholastic Theology in Perspective, pg. 222

^[486] Ibid.

^[487] Fr. John Romanides, “Romeonsyni” [in Greek], Ekdoseis Pournara, Thessaoloniki (2002), pg. 133

^[488] St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity (The Fathers of the Church: Volume 45), The Catholic University of America Press, pg. 95 (Book 3)

^[489] The Fifth-Sixth Council or “Quinisext Council”, was a Council held in 692. It was called “Fifth-Sixth” because both the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils had omitted to draw up any disciplinary canons, and it was intended to complete them both in this respect. The Fifth-Sixth Council was later ratified by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

^[490]Sts. Agapius and Nicodemus, The Rudder (Pedalion), The Orthodox Christian Education Society, 1957, pg. 296 (Footnote 2 of Interpretation to Canon II of the 102 Canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council)

^[491] St. Raphael of Brooklyn, In Defense of Saint Cyprian, Uncut Mountain Press, pg. 19

^[492] The 5^th Ecumenical Council on St. Augustine:
https://classicalchristianity.com/2012/01/21/the-fifth-ecumenical-council-on-augustine/

^[493] Ibid.

^[494] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Volume 14: The Seven Ecumenical Councils (The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Council), 4^th printing (2004), edited by Philip Schaff & Henry Wace, pg. 322
see also: https://classicalchristianity.com/2012/01/21/the-fifth-ecumenical-council-on-augustine/

^[495] Fr. Seraphim Rose, letter to Fr. Michael Azkoul dated June 26^th (June 13^th OS), 1981 (Letter 310): https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/

^[496] Fr. Seraphim Rose, letter to Fr. Igor Kapral dated October 12^th (September 29^th OS), 1975 (Letter 188): https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/

^[497] Fr. Seraphim Rose, The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church, pg. 86-87

^[498] The Rudder (Pedalion), pg. 296 (Footnote 2 of Interpretation to Canon II of the 102 Canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council)

^[499] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Patristic and Scholastic Theology in Perspective, pg. 222

^[500] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[501] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 283

^[502] For a detailed examination of this, see Orthodox Survival Course by Fr. Seraphim Rose

^[503] Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodox Survival Course, pg. 6 (Lecture 1):
http://orthodoxaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/course.pdf

^[504] Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, And Early Man, pg. 387

^[505] Fr. John Romanides, An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, Cocheco Falls Publications, pg. 93-95

^[506] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg.194-195

^[507] Ibid., pg. 267-268

^[508] Jude 1:3

^[509] 1^st Corinthians 2:16

^[510] Matthew 28:20

^[511] St. Sophrony of Essex, Saint Silouan the Athonite, pg. 88

^[512] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 274

^[513] Krivocheine, In The Light of Christ, pg. 171

^[514] St. Symeon the New Theologian, quoted in In The Light of Christ, pg. 171

^[515] Ibid., pg. 170

^[516] Ibid., pg. 172

^[517] Ibid., pg. 173

^[518] St. Hilarion Troitsky, Holy Scripture and the Church, pg. 44: https://www.newmartyr.info/files/Saint-Hilarion-Holy-Scripture-and-the-Church.pdf

^[519] 1^st Corinthians 2:14

^[520] 2^nd Peter 3:14-16

^[521] Dyer, Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted

^[522] Krivocheine, In The Light of Christ, pg. 175

^[523] 1^st Corinthians 13:9

^[524] Here St. Barsanuphius is paraphrasing 1^st Corinthians 12:4-11

^[525] Romans 11:33-34

^[526]St. Barsanuphius the Great, Barsanuphius and John, Letters Vol II, trans. John Chryssavgis, Catholic University Press, pg. 186-187

^[527] Fr. Seraphim Rose, The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church, pg. 66-67

^[528] Ibid., pg. 71

^[529] Heiromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 3^rd edition, pg. 506

^[530] Ibid.

^[531] Ibid., pg. 511

^[532] Ibid., pg. 513-514

^[533] Revelation 7:1 & 20:8

^[534] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 113

^[535] See, for example: Dr. John Morris’ The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present and Future.

^[536] See also: “The Age of the Earth and the Rate of Geological Processes by Alexander Lalomov”, included in: Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, pg. 861-881 (Appendix 4)

^[537] Fr. John Romanides, The Creation of the World and Man: https://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2014/06/fr-john-romanides-on-creation-of-world_3.html

^[538] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 135.

^[539] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 2, pg. 117

^[540] Revelation 7:4

^[541] Revelation 20:4

^[542] Revelation 7:1 & 20:8

^[543] For a collection of statements of contemporary saints and holy elders on the topic of evolution, see Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision, 2^nd edition, pg. 787-822. The following saints are cited as rejecting the theory of evolution: Ambrose of Optina, Theophan the Recluse, John of Kronstadt, Barsanuphius of Optina, Hieromartyr Vladimir of Kiev and Galich, Nektarios of Aegina, Hieromartyr Hilarion Troitsky, Hieromartyr Thaddeus of Tver, Nikolai Velimirovich, Luke the Surgeon, Justin Popovich, Paisius of Sihastria and Sihla, Sophrony of Essex, Paisios the Athonite. There are not, to our knowledge, any canonized saints who embraced evolution, and so the patristic consensus is very clear on this issue.

^[544] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 304-305

^[545] Fr. John Romanides quoted in Empirical Dogmatics Vol 1, pg. 152

^[546] St. Barsanuphius of Optina quoted in Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, pg. 709

^[547] Ibid., pg. 710

^[548] Archimandrite Athanasios Mitilinaios, Revelation Vol I: The Seven Golden Lampstands, pg. 5-6

^[549] John 21:25

^[550] Letter of Fr. Seraphim Rose to Alexey Young, dated Jan. 31/Feb. 13, 1973 (Letter 112): https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/2017/11/17/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/

^[551] Elder Ephraim of Arizona, My Elder Joseph the Hesychast, pg. 348

^[552] Leviticus 18:7, Gensis 9:23

^[553] Elder Ephraim of Arizona, My Elder Joseph the Hesychast, pg. 664:
“When Geronda [St. Joseph] went to the Holy Mountain in 1921, there were 5,500 monks there. When he reposed in 1959, there were only half as many. Not only was the population decreasing dramatically, but also the average age was significantly higher. In other words, the few monks remaining were decrepit old men for the most part. Young monks were not coming, and the old ones were dying off. Thus, in 1971, there were only 1,145 monks left – a mere fifth of what the population had been just fifty years earlier. The situation had become so alarming that many people thought that monasticism would soon disappear from the Holy Mountain. Things started turning around when Geronda’s disciples began repopulating the monasteries of the Holy Mountain. Many well-educated young men, yearning for noetic prayer, gathered around Geronda’s disciples and formed large brotherhoods. Because of the large size and good reputation of these brotherhoods, they were asked to move into the monasteries… Moreover, Geronda’s disciples have repopulated and established dozens of women’s monasteries with hundreds of monastics throughout Greece, Cyprus, the United States, and Canada.”

^[554] Vlachos, I Know A Man In Christ, pg. 150

^[555] James 1:27

^[556] Luke 10:42

^[557] The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church (October), Holy Apostles Convent, 4^th edition, pg. 565 (Oct. 20):
From the life of St. Lot: “Abba Lot went to see Abba Joseph and said to him, Abba, as far as I can I say my little office, I fast a little, I pray and meditate, I live in peace and as far as I can, I purify my thoughts. What else can I do?’ Then the old man stood up and stretched his hands towards heaven. His fingers became like ten lamps of fire and he said to him, ‘If you will, you can become all flame.’”
see also: https://iconandlight.wordpress.com/2020/10/21/52924/

^[558] My Elder Jospeh the Hesychast, pg. 687-688. It should be noted that this does not exclude martyrdom and other exceptional situations.

^[559] Matthew 11:25

^[560] Matthew 5:8

^[561] Luke 17:21

^[562] Philippians 4:7

Glossary

Definitions for the below terms are taken from the glossaries in My Elder Joseph the Hesychast by Elder Ephraim of Arizona, Saint Paisios of Mount Athos by Elder Isaac, and Saint Gregory Palamas as a Hagiorite by Met. Hierotheos Vlachos.

ANATHEMA: The most severe ecclesiastical penalty consisting of the expulsion and complete separation of a Christian from the body of the Church.

CANON: From the Greek for “measuring stick” or “rule”; the Ecumenical and Local Synods established canons for the preservation of Church order in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the God-inspired Holy Fathers.

DIVINE GRACE: God’s uncreated energy offered to man for his salvation, through the Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, Communion, Confession, and so on. It constitutes a divine gift, as is reflected in the Greek word for grace, charis, which also means “gift”. Man must subsequently endeavor to safeguard this gift. Divine Grace gives a foretaste of the heavenly good things to come, its manifestations are many, and it is only truly known by those who have tasted of it.

DISPASSION: Dispassion is achieved when all three aspects of the soul (i.e., the intelligent, appetitive, and incensive aspects) are directed towards God. It is the transfiguration of the passionate aspect of the soul (i.e., the aspect of the soul which is more vulnerable to passion, namely, the appetitive and incensive aspects), rather than its mortification. Thus, dispassion in this context does not signify a stoic indifference, but rather a transfiguration and sanctification of the powers of the soul and eventually of the body also.

GERONDA: Often translated in English as “Elder”.A hieromonk, priest, or monk, who, ideally, has reached dispassion by the grace of God. Thus, because of his own experience, he is able to lead his spiritual children to dispassion as well. In a broader sense, it is used as a respectful title for any spiritual father and any elderly hieromonk, priest, or monk.

GLORIFICATION: the preferred term used by Fr. John Romanides for deification/divinization/theosis. See definition of theosis.

HAGIORITE: One whose ascetic life is established on the Holy Mountain; from “hagios” = “holy”, and “oros” = “mountain”. Mount Athos is called the Holy Mountain.

HEART: In the patristic usage, the heart is both spiritual and physical. The spiritual heart is “deep” (Psalm 64:6), and “immeasurable abyss” (St. Makarios, Philokalia Vol III, pg. 321, 81), the “inner man” (St. Gregory Palamas, To Xeni, Gk. Philokalia Vol IV, pg. 109), the “hidden person” (1^st Peter 3:4), the “battle-ground of the spiritual struggle” (St Sophrony, Saint Silouan, pg. 10), identified with the nous (St. Maximos the Confessor, Philokalia Vol II, pg. 109, 73), into whose depths the grace of God enters through baptism (St. Diadochos of Photiki, Philokalia Vol I, pg. 77, 279), where God may be made manifest (St. Theoleptos of Philadelphia, Writings, pp. 385ff. GK. Philokalia Vol II, pg. 158). It is located in the physical heart as in an organ (St. Gregory Palamas, Triads, 1, 2, 3), which is man’s natural, para-natural, and supernatural center (St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Handbook of Spiritual Counsels, pg. 154-157), and is the path for the nous to return to the spiritual heart (St Sophrony, Saint Silouan, pg. 47)

HESYCHAST: Someone who lives a life of hesychia in seclusion from the world and is wholly dedicated to God. His chief struggle is to bring his nous into his heart.

HESYCHIA: The ascetic practice of noetic stillness linked with watchfulness and deepened by the unceasing Jesus Prayer. Hesychia is an undisturbed nous and a heart with peace, freed from thoughts, passions, and from influence of the environment. It is dwelling in God. The only way for man to achieve theosis is through hesychia. External stillness can help one achieve hesychia.

HERESY: A belief contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Fr. John Romanides liked to speak about heresy as anything that leads one away from the therapeutic process of purification, illumination, and theosis. The source of heresy is man’s imagination and speculation using his rational intellect. By contrast, the source of true doctrine is the revelatory experience had by the glorified apostles, prophets, and saints. Heresy speaks of a God that does not exist, that is the product of man’s imagination.

ILLUMINATION: Closely connected with noetic prayer, illumination of the nous occurs when the heart is purified from the passions, the nous returns to the heart, and the prayer operates unceasingly. When the heart is purified, by the will of God, the Holy Spirit comes and dwells in man’s heart and prays unceasingly. Illumination is a gift of God and cannot be attained entirely by man’s efforts. Man works to purify his heart in order to be capable of receiving the gift of God’s grace. At this stage, one weeps tears of repentance daily.

IMAGINATION: One of the lowest of man’s psychical faculties, operating in a realm between reason and sense. Although the imagination can be used by the nous to create beneficial contemplations, it is also the chief instrument that evil spirits use to create fantasies of worldly or sinful things which distract one from prayer and lead one to wrong thinking, wrong feeling, and wrong doing.

LOGOI: Sometimes referred to as the inner essences or principles of created things, however not to be understood in a Platonic sense; they are God’s divine wills towards created things.

MYSTERY/SACRAMENT: Sacred ecclesial rites by which God’s divine grace is imparted to the faithful. While God’s energies are at work in all of creation, it is only in the Mysteries of the Church where man can come into contact with God’s purifying, illumining, and deifying energies. It is these specific energies that are typically being referred to by the word “grace”.

NEPSIS/NEPTIC: The kind of sober minded vigilance that characterizes the ascetic life. It is usually translated as “watchfulness”.

NOETIC: Belong to, characteristic of, or perceptible to the nous.

NOETIC PRAYER: Prayer done with the nous without distraction within the heart. It is also called “the prayer of the heart”. It is contrasted with the prayer of the intellect which is done with man’s reasoning faculty.

NOUS: A Greek word, often translated in English as “mind” or “intellect”. There is not an English word that directly corresponds to nous as it is understood in the Fathers, and so in many English translations produced by Orthodox publishers, they have opted to retain the Greek word for clarity. The Fathers use this term with several meanings. They mainly refer to the nous as the soul (the “spiritual nature” of a man – St. Isaac the Syrian) and the heart (or “the essence of the soul” – Philokalia Vol II, pg. 109, 73). More specifically, it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart. However, they also refer to it as the “eye of the soul” (St. John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith, FC Vol. 37, pg. 236) or the “organ of theoria” (Homilies of St. Makarios the Great) which “is engaged in pure prayer” (St. Isaac the Syrian). They call the energy of the nous “a power of the soul” (St. Gregory Palamas, On the Holy Spirit, 2, 9) “consistent of thoughts and conceptual images”. However, the nous is more commonly known as the energy of the soul, whereas the heart is known as the essence of the soul.

INTELLECT: The reason of man, that is, his discursive, conceptualizing, and logical faculty of conscious thinking and cognition. It draws conclusions and formulates concepts from information obtained either by revelation or by the senses. Often the Greek word nous will be translated into English as “intellect”, which gives a misleading impression in modern English.

KNOWLEDGE: Through the process of theosis, man attains to a knowledge of a higher order than any human knowledge and beyond any other natural knowledge. It is neither an intellectual speculation about God nor knowledge about God, but it stems from personal experience of God, first through undistracted prayer accompanied by peace and love of God or joyous mourning, and later by theoria of His uncreated light.

PATRISTIC: Something of, or related to, the holy Fathers of the Church.

PASSIONS: A passion is a spiritual disease that dominates the soul. When one repeatedly falls into a certain sin, it becomes second nature – a passion – for him to keep falling into this sin. Thus, one who misuses the God-given powers of the soul of desire and anger, or one who continually succumbs to the temptations of lust, hate, malice, or jealousy, or one who succumbs to pride and vainglory acquires those passions. It is primarily through obedience to an experienced spiritual father that one is cleansed or healed of the passions and reaches dispassion.

PRAYER OF THE HEART: The highest form of prayer in which the nous is kept in the heart by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and prays there without distraction. Beyond this form of prayer is theoria.

PRAXIS: The practice of the virtues, in contrast with theoria. It refers to the external aspects of the ascetical life (namely, purification, fasting, vigils, prostrations, etc., and in general the keeping of the commandments) and is an indispensable prerequisite for theoria.

PURIFICATION: In patristic theology, purification refers to three states: 1.) the rejection from the heart of all thoughts, 2.) the ascetical effort by which the three powers of the soul are turned towards God, thereby moving in accordance with and above nature, and 3.) the ascetical method by which man overcomes selfish love and achieves unselfish love.

THEORIA: Theoria is the “vision of the spirit” or “a non-sensible revelation of the nous” (St. Isaac the Syrian) through which one attains spiritual knowledge. That is, through theoria, the Holy Spirit grants one understanding of the mysteries of God and creation which are hidden to the rational human intellect. Knowledge stemming from theoria is revelation from above. Theoria is not intellectual work, but an operation of the Holy Spirit which opens the eyes of the soul to behold mysteries. The Church Fathers often contrast it with praxis which is an indispensable prerequisite for theoria. In the first stage of theoria, the prayer is said without distraction and with a sense of the presence of God with love, peace, mourning, etc. In the next stage, the nous proceeds to feel what Adam felt in Paradise before the Fall, and it sees spiritually how all nature glorifies God. Furthermore, it sees His omnipotence, omniscience, and providence therein. St. Maximos the Confessor calls this the perception of the inner essences of principles of created beings (Philokalia Vol II, pg. 69). In the final stage of theoria, one beholds God Himself in uncreated light (Evagrios the Solitary, On Prayer, Philokalia Vol I, pg. 61).

THEOSIS: Connected with the theoria of uncreated Light, theosis (divinization/glorification) is a participation in the uncreated grace of God. At this stage of perfection, one has reached dispassion. Through the cooperation of God with man, theosis is attained through the action of the tranfigurative grace of God.

UNCREATED LIGHT: The Light of the Transfiguration of Christ as revealed to His disciples on Mount Tabor. St. Paisios said “you can see it with your eyes closed and with your eyes open, at night in the darkness and during the day in sunlight.” After ascetic purification and devotion of the soul, a person is able, by God’s grace, to experience a divine union, and be immersed in, and radiate, this Light.

Bibliography

“Orthodox Life,” Vol. 26, No.3, ‘76; “The Orthodox Word,” Vol. 11, No. 3, ‘75; Stand Fast in the Truth; and Vol; II of “The Works of Archbishop Averky”

Akathist to Our Savior Jesus Christ: https://www.akathists.com/our-savior-jesus-christ/all-merciful-lord-physician/

Apostolic Constitutions:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07152.htm

Augustine of Hippo. The Trinity (The Fathers of the Church: Volume 45), The Catholic University of America Press, 2010.

Augustine of Hippo. On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I, Chapter 67): https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

Azkoul, Michael. The Influence of Augustine of Hippo on the Orthodox Church, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1991.

Agapius and Nicodemus. The Rudder (Pedalion), published in 1957 by The Orthodox Christian Education Society

Bulgakov, Makary. History of the Russian Church (in Russian), 1890

Basil the Great. Letter 234: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202234.htm

Basil the Great. Letter 235: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202235.htm

Basil the Great. Address To Young Men On The Right Use Of Greek Literature: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/basil_greek_literature.htm

Ignatius Brianchaninov. The Arena, Holy Trinity Seminary Press, 2nd Edition, trans. Archimandrite Lazarus, 2017.

Bjorefeldt A, Illes S, Zetterberg H and Hanse E (2018) Neuromodulation via the Cerebrospinal Fluid: Insights from Recent in Vitro Studies. Front. Neural Circuits 12:5. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2018.00005.

Barsanuphius and John of Gaza. Barsanuphius and John, Letters Vol 2, translated by John Chryssavgis, Catholic University Press, 2014.

Cavarnos, Constantine. Byzantine Thought and Art, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2^nd edition, 2000.

Clogg, Richard. A Concise History of Greece, Cambridge University Press, 2^nd edition, 2002.

Chondropoulos, Sotos. Saint Nektarios: The Saint of our Century, ΚΑΙΝΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΓΗ Publications, 2015.

Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Homilies, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, trans. E.H. Gifford, amended, 2020.

Catalogue of the Heretical Teachings of Fr. John Romanides: https://www.scribd.com/document/554254625/Heresies-of-Romanides

Canons of the Council of Trullo: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

Canon of Matins on the Sunday of the Paralytic:
http://www.st-sergius.org/services/pent/40.pdf

Canon of Matins on Mid-Pentecost Thursday:
http://www.st-sergius.org/services/services103.html

Canon of Matins to St. John of the Ladder:
http://www.st-sergius.org/services/Emenaion/03-30.pdf

Canon of Matins to Sts. Cosmas and Damian:
http://www.st-sergius.org/services/Emenaion/07-01.pdf

Canon of Matins to St. Panteleimon:
http://www.st-sergius.org/services/Emenaion/07-27A.pdf

Capilupi MJ, Kerath SM, Becker LB. Vagus Nerve Stimulation and the Cardiovascular System. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020 Feb 3;10(2):a034173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a034173. PMID: 31109966; PMCID: PMC6996447.

Cleopa of Sihastria, recording title “Elder Cleopa – On Prayer”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOGXdLoNl2w&ab_channel=ioancasianion

Christensen, Damascene. Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 3^rd edition, 2010.

Chariton of Valamo. The Art of Prayer, trans. E. Kadloubovsky & E. M. Palmer, Faber and Faber, 1997.

Dionysios the Areopagite. “Pseudo-Dionysios: The Complete Works”, Paulist Press, trans. Colm Luibheid, 1987.

Dionysios the Areopagite. The Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, trans. C. E. Rolt, amended. Florence, AZ: Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, 2019.

Dyer, Jay. Analogy of Being, Atheism & the Logoi: Romanides Refuted: https://markhackard.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/analogy-of-being-atheism-the-logoi-romanides-refuted/

Dyer, Jay. Fr Romanides, John the Pilgrim & Quackodoxy References:
https://jaysanalysis.com/2022/07/25/fr-romanides-john-the-pilgrim-quackodoxy-references/

Elder Ephraim of New Skete. talk given in 2021 titled ‘Concerning Father John Romanides’ [In Greek]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFVPgyxVdcI&feature=youtu.be

Elder Ephraim of Arizona. My Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, 2013.

Ephraim of Katounakia. Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, Holy Mountain: Ecumenism is Dominated by Unclean Spirit: https://orthochristian.com/93492.html

Epignosis uses in the New Testament:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1922.htm

Florovsky, Fr. Georges. Ways of Russian Theology: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/ways_russian_theology_florovsky.htm

Florovsky, Fr. Georges. The Catholicity of the Church. Theological Articles of Fr. George Florovsky 4. On the Church. http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/theology_church_florovsky_e.htm#_Toc102874718

Florovsky, Fr. Georges. The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. III: Creation and Redemption (Chapter III: Creation and Creaturehood), Nordland Publishing Company, Belmont, Massachusetts, 1976:
tps://jbburnett.com/resources/florovsky/3/florovsky_3-3-creation.pdf

Florovsky, Fr. Georges. The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation, “The Christian East” Journal, Vol. XIII No. 2 (pages 49–64) 1932.

Gregory the Theologian. The Five Theological Orations. Translated by C. G. Browne and J. E. Swallow, amended. Florence, AZ: Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, 2019.

Gregory the Theologian. Orations XXXVII.4: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310237.htm

Gregory Palamas. The Triads, trans. Fr. Peter Chamberas, Newfound Publishing, 2021.

Gregory Palamas. The Homilies. trans. Christopher Veniamin. Essex, UK: Mount Thabor Publishing, 2009.

Gregory Palamas. The Triads, Paulist Press, trans. Nicholas Gendle, 1983.

Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory of Nyssa Collection, Aeterna Press, 2016.

Gregory of Nyssa. The Life of Moses, Paulist Press, 1978.

Gregory of Nyssa. On Infants’ Early Deaths: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.ix.iii.html#fnf_ix.iii-p27.1

HeartMath Institute. Chapter 01: Heart-Brain Communication. ”Science of the Heart: Exploring the Role of the Heart in Human Performance. 2019. HeartMath Institute. April 19, 2019. https://www.heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/heart-brain-communication/.

Isaac the Syrian. The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, 2^nd Edition, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2011.

Ignatius of Antioch. Epistle to the Ephesians:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Joseph the Hesychast. Letters & Poems, Vatopedi Monastery, 2023.

Joseph the Hesychast. Monastic Wisdom: The Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, 1st Edition, 1998.

John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 1.1
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200101.htm

John Chrysostom. Homily X on Romans, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111/npnf111.vii.xii.html

John Chrysostom. Baptismal Instructions, The Newman Press, 1962.

Service text for the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: https://www.orthodox.net/services/sluzebnic-chrysostom.pdf

John Climacus. The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Revised Edition, 2012.

John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, trans. F.H. Chase Jr., amended, 2019.

John of Damascus. Writings: Orthodox Faith, FC 37.

John of Damascus. The Fathers of the Church Vol XXXVII (St. John of Damascus), Ex Fontibus Company, trans. F.H. Chase Jr., 1958.

Prayerbook (also known as “The Jordanville Prayer Book”), Holy Trinity Seminary Press

Joshi et. al. How Do Abnormalities in the Cerebrospinal Fluid Impact Neuropsychology with Progressing Age? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35400348/

Ineffabilis Deus: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm

Lampe, G.W.H (editor). A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1961.

Kavelin, Fr. Leonid. Elder Macarius of Optina, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, trans. Valentina V. Lyovina, 1995.

Kontzevitch, Ivan. The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, trans. Olga Koshansky, 1988.

Krapovitsky, Metropolitan Anthony. On the Persecution Against the Russian Orthodox Church and Archbishop Hilarion Troitsky: https://orthochristian.com/126751.html

Krivocheine, Archbishop Basil. In The Light of Christ, Saints Vladimir’s Seminary Press, trans. Anthony Gythiel, 1986.

Larchet, Jean-Claude. What Is Theology?, Holy Trinity Seminary Press, 2023.

Lossky, Vladimir. Dogmatic Theology: Creation, God’s Image in Man, & the Redeeming Work of the Trinity, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2017.

Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1957.

Loudovikos, Fr. Nikolaos. A Eucharistic Ontology: Maximus the Confessor’s Eschatological Ontology of Being as Dialogical Reciprocity, Holy Cross Orthodox Press,trans. Elizabeth Theokritoff, 2010.

Loudovikos, Fr. Nikolaos. Church in the Making: An Apophatic Ecclesiology of Consubstantiality, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, trans. Norman Russel, 2016.

Lovelace, J.W., Ma, J., Yadav, S. et al. Vagal sensory neurons mediate the Bezold–Jarisch reflex and induce syncope. Nature 623, 387–396 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06680-7.

Maximos the Confessor. The Fathers of the Church Volume 146: On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture & the Responses to Thallasios, The Catholic University of America Press, 2018.

Maximos the Confessor. The Life of the Theotokos, St. George Monastery, 2020.

Maximos the Confessor. On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua Vol I, trans. Fr. Maximos Constas, Harvard University Press, 2014.

Maximos the Confessor. On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua Vol II, trans. Fr. Maximos Constas, Harvard University Press, 2014.

The Menaion Vol III (November), Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2005.

Mitilinaios, Archimandrite Athanasios. Revelation Vol I: The Seven Golden Lampstands, trans. Constantine Zalalas, 2^nd edition, 2016.

Mitilinaios, Archimandrite Athanasios. Revelation Vol II: The Seven Seals, Zoe Press, trans. Constantine Zalalas, 2014.

Metallinos, Fr. George. Authority is Experience: https://web.archive.org/web/20210315091231/https://pemptousia.com/2017/03/authority-is-experience/

Metallinos, Fr. George. Fabrications About Prof John S. Romanides by Capuchino Priest Ianni Spiteri: http://www.romanity.org/mir/me02en.htm

Meda, Karuna. 2022. “The Heart’s ‘Little Brain.’” Thomas Jefferson University. April 19, 2022. https://research.jefferson.edu/2022-magazine/the-hearts-little-brain.html.

Morris, Dr. John. The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present and Future, Master Books, 2007.

Moss, Vladimir. A Critical Examination of the Theology of Fr. John Romanides, 2018

Neophytos, Metropolitan of Morphou. Interview given at the “On the Eighth Ecumenical Council” Conference in Lake Guntersville, Alabama (March 14-16, 2024): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mTel8pFTXI&t=392s&ab_channel=TheOrthodoxEthos (15:25-16:45 timestamp)

Neophytos, Metropolitan of Morphou. Father John Romanides and Modern Empirical Theologians, March 22^nd, 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3dJqnuZ3U

Nikodemos the Hagiorite and Makarios of Corinth. The Philokalia, Volumes 1-5, trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard & Kallistos Ware. New York, NY: Faber and Faber, Inc., 1979-1995.

Nikodemos the Hagiorite and Makarios of Corinth. Writings From the Philokalia: On the Prayer of the Heart, trans. E. Kadloubovsky & G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, 1992.

Nikodemos the Hagiorite. Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ, Uncut Mountain Press, 1st edition, trans. Fr. George Dokos, 2006.

Nikodemos the Hagiorite. A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, Paulist Press, 1989.

NTFU News, ‘Was Fr. John Romanides An Ecumenist? Yes!’: https://nftu.net/fr-john-romanides-ecumenist-yes/

Orthodox Ethos. On The Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria, Uncut Mountain Press, 2023.

Orthodox Church in America. Life of St. Ignatius of Antioch: https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2014/12/20/103594-hieromartyr-ignatius-the-god-bearer-bishop-of-antioch

Orthodox Church in America. Lives of Saints entry for Saint Athanasius Parios: https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2024/06/24/149033-saint-athanasius-parios

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Volume 14: The Seven Ecumenical Councils (The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Council), 4^th printing (2004), edited by Philip Schaff & Henry Wace

Paisios the Athonite. Saint Paisios the Athonite, Holy Hesychasterion “Evangelist John the Theologian”, trans. Fr. Peter Chamberas, 2018.

Paisios the Athonite. Saint Paisios of Mount Athos Spiritual Counsels Volume I: With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man, Holy Hesychasterion “Evangelist John the Theologian”, trans. Cornelia Tdsakiridou & Maria Spanou, 2016.

Paisios the Athonite. Spiritual Volume III: Spiritual Struggle, 1^st edition, Holy Hesychasterion “Evangelist John the Theologian”, trans. Fr. Peter Chamberas, 2014.

Paisios the Athonite. Spiritual Counsels Volume IV: Family Life, Holy Hesychasterion “Evangelist John the Theologian”, trans. Fr. Peter Chamberas, 2017.

Paisios the Athonite. Epistles, Holy Monastery “Evangelist John the Theologian”, 2002.

Paisios the Athonite. The Athonite Letter on Ecumenism:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/elder-paisios-the-athonite-letter-on-ecumenism.aspx

Payne, Daniel Paul. The Revival of Political Hesychasm in Greek Orthodox Thought: A Study of the Hesychast Basis of the Thought of John S. Romanides and Christos Yannaras, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, 2011.

Popovich, St. Justin. Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, trans. Fr. Asterios Gerostergios, 1994.

Popovich, St. Justin. Man and God Man, Sebastian Press, 2009.

Popovich, St. Justin. The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, Lazarica Press, 2000.

Popovich, St. Justin. Original Sin, Its Causes and Consequences [in Russian]:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Iustin_Popovich/pervorodnyj_greh/

Prayers Before Receiving Holy Communion: https://orthodoxprayer.org/Communion_Prayers.html

Raphael of Brooklyn. In Defense of Saint Cyprian, Uncut Mountain Press, 2023.

Rakovalis, Athanasios. Talks with Father Paisios, Orthodox Kypseli Publications, 1^st edition, 2000.

Romanides. Fr. John Romanides Resource Page, John Sanidopoulos blog: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/08/fr-john-romanides-resource-page.html

Romanides, Fr. John. The Cure of the Neurobiological Sickness of Religion: https://romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.01.htm#s6

Romanides, Fr. John. The Sickness of Religion and Its Cure: https://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.20.en.the_sickness_of_religion_and_its_cure.01.htm

Romanides, Fr. John. The Sickness of Religion and Its Orthodox Cure: http://www.oodegr.com/english/psyxotherap/Romanides_sickness_of_religion.htm

Romanides, Fr. John. The Ancestral Sin, Zephyr Publishing, trans. George S. Gabriel, 1958.

Romanides, Fr. John. Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, Holy Cross Press, 1981.

Romanides, Fr. John. An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, Cocheco Falls Publications, 2004.

Romanides, Fr. John. Notes On The Palamite Controversy: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.15.en.notes_on_the_palamite_controversy.01.htm

Romanides, Fr. John. The Romiosini of 1821 and the Great Powers: http://www.romanity.org/mir/me02en.htm

Romanides, Fr. John. A Protestant Dictatorship Via the Constitution of the W.C.C: https://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.27.en.Constitution_of_WCC_and_Protestant_Dictatorship.htm

Romanides, Fr. John. A Critique of the Balamand Agreement: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frjr_balamand.aspx

Romanides, Fr. John. The Creation of the World and Man: https://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2014/06/fr-john-romanides-on-creation-of-world_3.html

Romanides, Fr. John. “Romeonsyni” [in Greek], Ekdoseis Pournara, Thessaoloniki (2002)

Romanides, Fr. John. Patristic Theology: The University Lectures of Fr. John Romanides, 2^nd Edition, Uncut Mountain Press, 2022.

Romanides, Fr. John. Fr. John Romanides’ Encounter with the Zoe Brotherhood:
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/12/yesterday-i-made-post-prophetic-letter.html

Rose, Fr. Seraphim. The Place of Blessed Augustine In The Orthodox Church, 3^rd Edition, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2007.

Rose, Fr. Seraphim. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 5^th Edition, 2013.

Rose, Fr. Seraphim. Genesis, Creation, And Early Man, 2^nd edition, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2011.

Rose, Fr. Seraphim. Orthodox Survival Course:
http://orthodoxaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/course.pdf

Rose, Fr. Seraphim. Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose: https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/

Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Staniloe, St. Dimitru. Orthodox Spirituality, St. Tikhon’s Monastery Press, 2003.

Symeon the New Theologian. The Practical and Theological Chapters & The Three Theological Discourses. Translated by Paul McGuckin. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982.

Symeon the New Theologian. The Discourses, Paulist Press, 1980.

Symeon the New Theologian. On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses, Volume 2, trans. Alexander Golitzin. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996.

Symeon the New Theologian. Hymns of Divine Love, Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery Press, trans. G. Maloney, amended, Florence AZ, 2021.

Symeon the New Theologian. The Epistles of St Symeon the New Theologian, Oxford University Press, trans. H. J. M Turner, 2009.

Symeon the New Theologian. Letter 1: On Confession, translated from Greek PG 95.283-304 by Fr. Steven Ritter: http://www.ldysinger.com/@texts2/1022_sym-nt/03_sym-let1_conf.htm

Sophrony (Sakharov) of Essex. Saint Silouan the Athonite, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991.

Schaff, Philip (Ed.). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 9. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1899.

Schaff, Philip (Ed.) and Wace, Henry (Ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 4. Translated by Archibald Robertson. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1892.

Schaff, Philip (Ed.) and Wace, Henry (Ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 5. Translated by William Moore and Henry Austin Wilson. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1893.

Siencienski, A. Edward. Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority in Orthodox Christian History:
https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/holy-disobedience-resistance-to-secular-and-ecclesiastical-authority-in-orthodox-christian-history

Symeon the New Theologian. Letter 1: On Confession, translated from Greek PG 95.283-304 by Fr. Steven Ritter: http://www.ldysinger.com/@texts2/1022_sym-nt/03_sym-let1_conf.htm

Theodore the Studite. Epistle I.36:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sttheo_canon.aspx

Theodore the Studite. Letter to Magister Theoctistus (Epistle I.24), PG 985ABC: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sttheo_canon.aspx

Thaddeus of Vitovnica. Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2009.

The 5^th Ecumenical Council on St. Augustine:
https://classicalchristianity.com/2012/01/21/the-fifth-ecumenical-council-on-augustine/

The Angel Life: A Vision of Orthodox Monasticism, St. Nilus Skete, 2021.

The Blight of “Bavarocracy” in the Church of Greece: https://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/ellada/vavarokratia1.htm

The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church: July, Holy Apostles Convent, 2^nd edition, 2015.

The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church: October, Holy Apostles Convent, 4^th edition, 2017.

The Triodion, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2021.

The Orthodox New Testament, 10^th edition, 2023, Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, Colorado, USA.

The Orthodox Word, Issue no. 92, 1980, Vol.16, no. 3, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood

Triandaphillopoulos, Archimandrite Ephraim. Noetic Prayer as the Basis of Mission and the Struggle Against Heresy, trans. Gregory Heers, Uncut Mountain Press, 2022.

Troitsky, St. Hilarion. On the Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christian Communities: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/the-unity-of-the-church.aspx

Troitsky, St. Hilarion. Holy Scripture and the Church: https://www.newmartyr.info/files/Saint-Hilarion-Holy-Scripture-and-the-Church.pdf

Toronen, Fr. Melchisedec. Union and Distinction in the Thought of St. Maximos the Confessor, Oxford University Press, 2007.

Vespers on the Sunday of the Paralytic: http://www.st-sergius.org/services/pent/40.pdf

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. The Theological Works of Fr. John Romanides: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/10/theological-works-of-fr-john-romanides.html

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. “I Know A Man In Christ”: Elder Sophrony the Hesychast and Theologian, Holy Monastery of the Birth of the Theotokos, 2015.

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. Patristic and Scholastic Theology in Perspective Based On The Spoken Teachings of Father John Romanides, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, trans. Sister Pelagia Selfe, 2023.

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. Empirical Dogmatics Of The Orthodox Church According To The Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides Vol 1, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, trans. Sister Pelagia Selfe, 2011.

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church According to the Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides Vol 2, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, trans. Sister Pelagia Selfe, 2013.

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. Orthodox Psychotherapy, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, trans. Esther Williams, 1^st edition, 1994.

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. Saint Gregory Palamas as a Hagiorite, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, trans. Esther Williams, 1997.

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. Father John Romanides: His Life and Legacy: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2021/11/father-john-romanides-his-life-and.html

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. The Person in the Orthodox Tradition, trans. Esther Williams, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 2^nd edition, 2021.

Vespers for Sts. Cosmas and Damian:
http://www.st-sergius.org/services/Emenaion/07-01.pdf

Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos. Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule, Wipf & Stock, 2013.

Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos. The Orthodox Church, 3^rd Edition, Penguin Books, 2015.

Wikipedia page for Otto of Greece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_of_Greece

Wikipedia page for George I of Greece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Greece

Yannaras, Christos. Orthodoxy and the West, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, trans. Fr. Peter Chamberas & Normal Russell, 2006.

Yannaras, Christos. Person and Eros, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, trans. Normal Russel, 2008.

Zappaterra, M.W., Lehtinen, M.K. The cerebrospinal fluid: regulator of neurogenesis, behavior, and beyond. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 69, 2863–2878 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-012-0957-x.