Posted on 03/04/2005 3:27:21 AM PST by kosta50
I suspect St. Jerome's lion, which he tamed through an act of charity, is meant to be understood not literally but as a metaphor for his fierce temper.
He concentrates only on the fallen application of the incensive power of the sould. He does mention once, in slight passing, the intended use of the incensive power, when he says that we no longer use it "against temptation." Perhaps in the remainder of the article, which I assume will be posted later, he will discuss this. I probably also have this article on my shelves here, and I'll try to look for it as well as other references...
It helps to remember that Satan isn't creative. He doesn't invent anything new. He only distorts what God made. The difficult thing is seeing through this curent "veil of tears" to truly know what God intended for us. We often think we are being quite holy when we are just manifesting our fallenness in a different way...
Almsgiving heals the soul's incensive power; fasting withers sensual desire [appetitive power]; prayer purifies the intellect and prepares it for contemplation of created beings [intellective power.] For the Lord has given us commandments which correspond to the powers of the soul.
St. Maximos the Confessor (First Century on Love no. 79)
Just a taste of the "remedies" offered and recommended by the Church to bring healing to our souls: fasting, almsgiving, and prayer. All three are needed to bring us to wholeness...
"Nuking the Cube would normally be considered an Act of War. But all warfare is inherently sinful. Therefore, Nuking the Cube is sinful.
Comments?"
Indeed it is. I'd take on the mantle of chief among sinners, but +John Chrysostomos already claimed that one! :)
"Kolo, is St. Jerome St. Gerasimos? Reason I ask is the same Lion story attached to both."
No, +Gerasimos of Jordan was one of the Desert Fathers. Different guy.
As always, Agrarian, Kolokotronis, FormerLib, and others have expanded on the topic with great insights on the Orthodox phronema. Much obliged.
Anger always clouds our soul, even if it is "justified." That cloud obstructs God's light, and leaves us in the dark (passion), separated from Him. For that reason, anger is always sin.
Wars, whether "just" or unjust, are acts of anger and never of mercy or compassion. It is a product of our fallen nature, as Agrarian, points out, and as such it cannot be just. For we are all sinners, and fighting sin with sin is not just. Two negatives don't make a positive.
Western Christian concepts are different because of +Augustine's teaching of the "just" war as a last resort. This is characteristic of the juridical theology that prevailed in that region. Justifying violence in extremis opens a window to justifying sin as a last resort. As Agrarian points out, we are forced to defend ourselves because the fallen world forces it upon us, but we must never confuse that with righteousness or justice.
" Of course, you're welcome to swim the Tiber ... "
Towards Athens, Antioch perhaps? :)
Take a look at Agrarian's post 19.
Or take a look at Kosta's post #26
St. John Chrysostomos speaks of the importance and benefits in terms of repentance of our sins, of controling anger this way:
"Considering all these things then, and counting the recompense which is given in this case and remembering that to wipe away sins does not entail much labor and zeal, let us pardon those who have wronged us. For that which others scarcely accomplish, I mean the blotting out of their own sins by means of fasting and lamentations, and prayers, and sackcloth, and ashes, this it is possible for us easily to effect without sackcloth and ashes and fasting if only we blot out anger from our heart, and with sincerity forgive those who have wronged us."
Indeed:
"The forgetting of wrongs is a sign of true repentance. But he who dwells on them and thinks that he is repenting is like a man who thinks he is running while he is really asleep." St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent.
" I can relate to that. I've learned to tone it down somewhat, in my old age, but ..."
One of the advantages of old age, my friend, though truth be told, it was because of this very thread that I bit my tongue at least twice today!
Sugoi! (which is Japanese for fantastic!)
St. Isaac was soon called by God to rule over the Church in Nineveh. Although he ruled well as a bishop, affairs in the church there soon convinced him that he could not serve as a bishop. He retired again to his blessed solitude where he remained for the rest of his life. The writings St. Isaac produced in his solitary life have served the Church and the faithful well for some fourteen centuries (he died at the end of the sixth century), certainly a greater service to the faithful than he would have provided had he remained in the world as a bishop. He wrote from experience and guided those who came to him on the basis of his own activity. St. Isaac taught from practice, not from theory.
DIRECTIONS ON SPIRITUAL TRAINING
Today's teachings from St. Isaac concern the "three degrees of knowledge." Last week we looked at what these degrees are and how they are manifested; this week we will examine their effects on the believer:THE THREE MODES OF KNOWLEDGE
BEGIN TEXT -- These are the three modes of knowledge. From the time a man begins to distinguish good from evil, and until he leaves this world, the knowledge of his soul remains within these three degrees. The fullness of all wrong and impiety, and the fullness of righteousness, and the probing of all the depths of the mysteries of the spirit, all these are produced by one single knowledge in these three degrees; in it is contained every movement of the mind, whether it ascends or descends, in good, in evil, or in something between the two. These three degrees are called by the fathers: natural, contranatural and supranatural knowledge. They are the three directions along which the memory of a rational soul travels up and down, either when, as has been said, a man acts rightly from his own nature, or when by memory he is ravished on high, above his nature, in supranatural contemplation of God, or when he goes out to herd swine, having squandered the riches of good judgment, slaving with a multitude of demons.
HOW DIFFERENT DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE AFFECT THE SOUL
-- The first degree of knowledge renders the soul cold towards efforts to walk according to God. The second warms the soul, hastening its progress towards that which is on the level of faith. The third is rest from activity, enjoying the mysteries of the future life, in a single striving of mind. But since our being is as yet unable entirely to transcend its state of lifelessness and the burden of the flesh, so, while a man lives in the body, he remains in a constant state of changing from one to another. Now, like a miserable beggar, his soul begins its service in the second, the middle degree of virtue; now, like those who have received the spirit of sonship in the mystery of liberation, he rejoices in the quality of spiritual grace which corresponds to its Giver; then again he returns to his humble works performed with the help of the body. For there is no perfect freedom in this imperfect life.
– In the second degree, the work of knowledge consists in long- drawn exercise and labor. Work in the third degree is the doing of faith, performed not through actions, but through spiritual representations in the mind, in an activity which is purely of the soul, since it transcends the senses. By faith we mean not faith in relation to the distinctions of the Divine Hypostases we worship, or the miracle of dispensation through Incarnation in man's nature, although this faith is also very lofty; we mean that faith, which is kindled in the soul from the light of grace and which fortifies the heart by testimony of the mind, giving it the certainty of hope which is free from all doubt. This faith manifests itself not through increased hearing fo the ears, but thropugh spiritual eyes, which see the mysteries hidden in the soul, that invisible Divine treasure, which is hidden from the sight of sons of the flesh and is revealed by the Spirit to those who receive their food from Christ's table and learn His laws. As the Lord said: if ye keep my commandments, I will send you a Comforter, "even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive . . . he shall teach you all things" (John 14:17, 26).
from E. Kadloubovsky and G. E. H. Palmer, "Early Fathers from the Philokalia," (London: Faber and Faber, 1981), pp. 195 - 196
That was lovely. Thank you.
Your reply is somewhat of a puzzlement to me ... perhaps we don't quite mean the same thing when we say "sinful". If I thought, for example, that committing adultery with my neighbor's wife was an actual sin (something to be confessed if I did it), I wouldn't be going around recommending that it be done. Similarly, If I thought exploding a nuclear device over Mecca was necessarily an actual sin (something to be confessed if I did it) I wouldn't recommed it in my tagline. So what gives? I would hope that we agree that actual sin is something that, by the Grace of God, we would seek avoid, to remove from our lives, even if we are the chief among sinners.
...
PS: Don't worry about the adultery bit ... no question in my mind that's a major league sin.
This looks like a wonderful sermon! I want to take my time with both parts of it. Ping for later ... when I that time to devote to reading these threads. Thanks for posting them.
This seems out of sink with the Orthodox mindset, as I have grown accostomed to viewing it. Why is the priest being denied serving the Divine Liturgy for something out of his control? It seems a penalty for something that does not deserve one.
It is similar to our canons regarding marriage -- divorce is allowed, with up to a total of three marriages in the church, with proper justification.
What would some of the proper justifications be? Adultery, addiction, abuse? And why is a person allowed 3, that seems an excessive amount of times one can circumvent their vows to God. Does the number have any justifiable relationship to the number of times St. Peter denied Christ?
From Kosta50:
Wars, whether "just" or unjust,
Gentlemen(?), you've convinced me that we simply are not using the word "just" to mean the same thing. Indeed, I have always thought the term "Just War" was a regrettable choice of words ... it implies that somehow this war is good, and that war is bad. In fact all wars are bad. Sometimes, doing nothing is worse that resorting to war. Hence some wars are necessary, or inevitable or the fallen world forces it upon us. "Just" war theory is a philosophical tool for determining when that has happened, and how we are to conduct ourselves during the war, and how we are to determine that the war is or should be ended. (I would note that the list of wars, throughout human history, that has been "Just" from cause to completion is extremely short. It may well have zero entries.)
All of the above brings us back to the subject of Anger. We Catholics list it as one of the Seven Deadly Sins. And for good reason. " Anger always clouds our soul" and any decision thus made is made to a greater or lesser extent apart from the Grace of God. This may include a decision to go to war. As Agrarian points out, we are forced to defend ourselves because the fallen world forces it upon us, but that raises a very troubling issue. If any decision to go to war, and any killing in the course of that war is necessarily a sin we shouldn't do it. Ever. Under any circumstances. Even if the fallen world should try to force it upon us. We should indeed prefer to die than to commit a sin. Some things follow from this principle. For example, we should not prepare to engage in war either, lest a sin of anger should lead to a further sin of (multiple) murder. Such preparation would be a near occasion of sin (whether of a nation or an individual preparing to use lethal force in self defense), given our susceptibility to anger.
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/essays/peace-in-the-fathers
The Orthodox Church doesn't take this kind of juridical or legal approach to sin. The Greek word for sin, "Amartia," means "missing the mark." We miss the mark all the time -- by accident, by finding ourselves in situations where we have the choice between two imperfect actions, through sheer weakness. A sinner is not a criminal in need of punishment, he is a sick man in need of healing.
War is sinful, but so is disobeying one's rulers, so is failing to protect one's country, family, and neighbors. There is no one path with regard to these difficult issues -- the guidance of the Orthodox Church seems to be in the vein of "whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye" -- or "do ye," as the case may be.
Sometimes Christians, in times of persecution, have fled to the mountains, sometimes they have stood in one place and accepted martyrdom when it came to them. Neither is wrong -- saints have done each, and some have fled for a time, then later not fled and accepted death, and the Church deems both as good things. It is good to try to stay alive, since death is never a good thing. It is good to accept martyrdom for the sake of Christ.
Finally, I would point out that part of the order in this fallen world is that God gives and/or allows rulers over us. Those rulers have certain responsibilities before God that we ordinary folk do not have. They are responsible for keeping order, for punishing crimes and wickedness, and for fighting wars when necessary. This means that by definition, they do things to other human beings that in the ordinary spiritual life would be sinful. Can one call "good" the clapping of someone in handcuffs and locking them up into a prison cell? Maybe it is necessary to prevent them from murdering someone else. But is is good to hurt someone's body and lock them up in a cage?
In a sense it is indeed sinful, but it is also necessary for rules to do these things because of the fallenness of the world. It is a heavy burden on their souls, and it is why we pray especially for them in church at virtually every service and do not judge them. It is a mistake to apply things that rightly belong to the personal spiritual life to the operation of a nation. Turning the other cheek is a formula for striving toward Godliness in one's personal life -- for a king to apply this to his nation is irresponsible and wrong.
But again, a central tenet of Orthodoxy is that we do not deceive ourselves. Even when doing things that are "necessary," and that are being done to help people, we don't pretend that these things are good. When a surgeon cuts someone's abdomen open to take out a cancer, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Honestly, how can it ever be ontologically good to slice someone open and cause pain to their bodies? Yet it is done, and it is, in a sense, necessary -- although one could choose to die rather than have it done to one, or die rather than do it to someone else.
We fall short, we move on. We don't try to play games with ourselves to pretend that what is not good is really somehow good. Anyway, those are my further attempts at articulating, in a circular way, some of the Orthodox mindset. Both K. and I, BTW served in the military. I don't think either of us saw it as being anything we are ashamed of, or as a transgression of God's law. I, for one, saw it as a citizen's duty. But on the other hand, I remember even at the time being acutely aware that however necessary it might perhaps be, one couldn't say that being a part of an organization that spends its time either training for or doing things like killing people and blowing things up was the best path or means to holiness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.