Some Questions on the Jesus Prayer

We have received a very charming email from a woman we will call Janice Gaines. She is considering becoming Orthodox and has some questions. Here is the anonymized email, slightly edited for style:

Dear Orthodox Monk:

Providence has been indeed Divine these past few months.

Long, super long, very long story short: Orthodox Christianity has this born and raised Roman Catholic, though lapsed for decades, seriously interested and in consideration of conversion.

My journey has been fortuitous as it has led me to on-line places and videos rich with information, tradition, music, and serenity.

Finding your blog, quite by accident, earlier this evening had me reading page after page after page and finding a treasure trove of answers, further reading materials, meticulous writing (style), and a sense of humour I very much appreciate.

I am considering you, and of course, your blog, my blessing for the day.

Dear Orthodox Monk, I do have a question regarding the Jesus Prayer: In my on-line travels, logging thousands of pages already, I recall an older, mentor monk speaking about the Jesus Prayer being ‘dangerous’ for a novice (monk).

How can a prayer, especially one so tender, offered by a sinner to the Lord Jesus Christ, and begging His mercy, be considered dangerous?

If the Prayer is ‘dangerous’ on the lips of a novice, am I ‘safe’ in its recitation?

My Russian pronunciation is improving by leaps and bounds and I have found the greatest comfort in chanting the Jesus Prayer along with the Valaam Monastery Choir's twenty-one minute video (YouTube)—switching the last syllable to the feminine of course.

Too, in the pages of your blog, a young man remarked that in Greek Orthodoxy, the Jesus Prayer, at least to him, was considered a great ‘secret’ he feared would become trademarked if the true power of the Prayer were known.

I am confounded, dear Orthodox Monk, and I hope you will illuminate.

With sincere appreciation for your learned responses and the time and effort you expend on your blog, I thank you for considering my question for a reply.

God bless you.

Janice

Let us take the questions about the Jesus Prayer first. There are a number of stages in the practice of the Jesus Prayer, from simple group recitation perhaps with a YouTube video 20 minutes once or twice a day, to 24-hour a day, 7-day a week recitation in solitude a cave. At the latter stage the recitation is automatic even in sleep; the Prayer is repeated with the mind in the heart; the practitioner may be practising breath control. It should be clear to Janice that this advanced form of the Jesus Prayer is dangerous for the novice monk—and perhaps even for the advanced monk. So there is a spectrum of practice of the Jesus Prayer and cautions have to be understood in the context of where on the spectrum of practice the cautioner is positioning the practitioner. Moreover, no one can say where precisely on the spectrum the Jesus Prayer ceases to be safe and becomes dangerous. Many factors concerning the person praying enter into question—their personal history, their ecclesiastical situation, their medical health, whether they have a guide, whether they are leading a moral life, whether they go regularly to confession and communion, their family and work and economic situation and so on. For a healthy individual, there is much less danger repeating the Jesus Prayer 20 minutes a day than repeating it all the time in solitude. Similarly, risk in practising the Jesus Prayer is reduced for a member of the Orthodox Church without mental health problems who is leading a moral life. Similarly for someone who is getting along with their family, has a job they like, is economically self-sufficient and is generally not under stress.

We might make some remarks on factors that enter into the question of dangers of the repetition of the Jesus Prayer. However, we can only issue general guidelines; Janice needs a personal guide if she wants personal guidance.

There are several reasons why the Jesus Prayer might become dangerous. First of all, it is the repetition of a short sentence. The repetition itself necessarily stresses the brain. If there are genetically-based mental illnesses involved that stress might precipitate a crisis. This should be clear. But risk is increased if the person is under stress. This should also be clear.

Moreover, the formula of the Jesus Prayer is a formula which in Roman Catholic parlance is an act of repentance or contrition. In the healthy individual, no problem. But in a person with emotional problems, such an emphasis on repentance and contrition might provoke an emotional crisis—or, more likely, exacerbate an existing emotional crisis or condition.

Next, the Jesus Prayer is a prayer that arises out of Orthodox Egypt in the 4^th Century. It is very heavily contextualized by that fact in its historical development. Decontextualizing the Jesus Prayer—say by treating it one form among many of yoga—is fraught with spiritual and emotional and intellectual danger. It behoves Janice to make an effort to understand the Jesus Prayer from an Orthodox point of view, so that she prays it in an Orthodox way. This is indeed a general caution for all those practitioners, such as Eastern-Rite Catholics, Western-Rite Catholics, Protestants and others, who practise the Jesus Prayer ‘without the Orthodox mumbo-jumbo.’

And here we might remark on the trademarking of the Jesus Prayer that Janice alludes to. We don’t recall the passage in the blog she is referring to but the problem is that in America everyone wants the ‘quick fix,’ the easily used and marketed product. That seems to be what the person was referring to. However, the problem is that because of the contextualization of the Jesus Prayer in Orthodox tradition such a packaging is necessarily going to bastardize the practice of the Prayer. On the one hand, the purchaser gets watered-down adulterated goods; on the other hand the adulterated goods might be (spiritually) dangerous or even poisonous.

In this regard we might make a remark in passing that one ordinarily prays the Jesus Prayer in their native tongue. While we laud Janice on her studies of Russian and on her repeating the Jesus Prayer in Russian (necessary if she is going to be repeating it along with a video from Valaam Monastery), she should understand that in Elder Sophrony (Sakharov’s) monastery in Essex (Monastery of St John the Baptist, Tolleshunt Knights), the Prayer is repeated in a group setting in English even though Elder Sophrony was Russian, Athonite and a disciple of St Silouan the Athonite, also Russian.

Next, ultimately the practitioner of the Jesus Prayer is entering into conflict with the powers of darkness in a battle over their own soul. This is not the sort of language that is popular but it is the Orthodox tradition. Elder Sophrony’s book St Silouan the Athonite is good on this. The problem here is that the foolhardy practitioner might out of pride or conceit enter into battle without the support of the Great General, the Holy Spirit. Another metaphor might be that until you know how to swim, don’t jump in the deep end. So this is a caution saying that if you head for the more advanced end of the spectrum of practice before you are ready, you are in great danger: the downside risk is losing the battle and being possessed by a demon.

Next, because the advanced practitioner is entering into spiritual battle, their free will necessarily comes into play. An advanced practitioner of the Jesus Prayer is continually making choices as they deal with their ongoing thought processes in a conscious psychological state where they are faced with accepting or rejecting thoughts that come to them. They might make a mistake. Hence, before they enter into such an intense interior battle, they have to have their judgement trained.

Finally, advanced practitioners of the Jesus Prayer have visions. They might be real. So far so good. But they might be temptations. If the practitioner accepts the temptation, disaster. Again, St Silouan the Athonite is good on this. After an authentic vision of the risen Christ, St Silouan was over the years twice deceived by false visions while praying the Jesus Prayer in an advanced way.

Now let us turn to the broader issue of Janice’s possible conversion to Orthodoxy. First of all, a rule of thumb is that if she decides to remain Roman Catholic then she should practice a Roman Catholic form of spirituality. It simply doesn’t work to transplant an Orthodox tradition into Catholicism.

We would certainly encourage Janice to become Orthodox, but we would like to make the following remark. Orthodoxy, unless the person is drawn by the Holy Spirit, is a closed book. Even pious members of non-Orthodox Christian denominations can’t get past the surface of Orthodoxy, the ritual. They don’t see anything there beyond the ritual. Only from the inside of Orthodoxy is the mystagogy that is embedded in the ritual alive. And ultimately that is what Janice wants.

However, to make a genuine conversion to Orthodoxy, Janice must find Orthodoxy. This is not as easy as it might seem, there being in the United States a plethora of jurisdictions with all kinds of different issues—from rampant secularism to conservative ritualism and formalism. Janice has to pray for God to guide her steps.

Ich bin ein Weltanschauungfixer

We have received an email from Scotty (not his real name) from Rose-of-Sharon, Kansas (not his real address). The email reads:

Dear Sir:

Are you an Eastern Rite Catholic monk?

Thanks,

Scotty

Rose-of-Sharon, Kansas

To which we replied:

Normally we only reply to emails by posting the email, edited for grammar and syntax and to remove any identifying information, on the blog and then replying on the blog.

Is this acceptable?

Orthodox Monk

To which Scotty replied:

Hello.

Yes, you may post my question. Thank you for asking. Perhaps I should rephrase my question: Are you a member of a monastic order within the Byzantine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI?

Scotty

Answer: No.

Comment: We are puzzled that someone would even ask. The blog is named Orthodox Monk.

–Orthodox Monk

More on the Byzantine Catholic Forum Discussion of Our Post on the Jesus Prayer

After we wrote our post on the response of the Byzantine Catholic Forum to our original post on the Jesus Prayer in the Eastern Rite Catholic Church, we followed the further discussion on the thread on the Byzantine Catholic Forum and decided after what we thought was a wonderful, balanced post by Fr. Kimel to post a reply by means of an email.  Then Fr. Kimel replied with a very hard-line post refuting us.  We submitted another email containing our response to Fr. Kimel to Mr. John Vernoski, the Administrator of the Byzantine Catholic Forum Web Site.  Although Mr. Vernoski was kind enough to print our first email and even to engage in an email exchange with us, he seems to have refused to print this last email.  Instead he has printed a rather dogmatic personal ‘refutation’ of our position that supports Fr. Kimel.  Here is the email that aggravated Mr. Vernoski, and perhaps whomever he consulted:

Dear Mr. Vernoski:

Here is my last remark for the thread.  I will not be posting anything else.  It is a waste of time.

Start here:

We would like to close our contribution to the Byzantine Catholic Forum with these remarks:

Fr Kimel takes a rather hard-line approach to preserve the flock it seems.

He writes:

Here is the critical weakness of Orthodox Monk's argument. Orthodox Monk apparently believes that because Pius X and Benedict XVI strongly commended the theology of Thomas Aquinas that therefore it functions as the infallible touchstone for Catholic reflection. But of course, anyone who is acquainted with Catholic theology knows this is not the case. Thomas Aquinas will always have a special place within Catholic theology, but neither his philosophical principles nor his theological arguments are beyond debate and question. Just ask the Franciscans. Just ask just about any modern Catholic philosopher or theologian.

The Pope in question is Pius XI and the reference to Aquinas is a Papal Encyclical, STUDIORUM DUCEM (On St. Thomas Aquinas), issued in 1923.  It is too long to quote even in part.  It can be found here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P11STUDI.HTM

Popes have consistently taught over the centuries (see the Encyclical) that Thomism is a normative expression of Roman Catholic theology.  The Encyclical was establishing, inter alia, that Thomism determine  the course of studies in Roman Catholic seminaries [actually it refers to the then new provision of canon law that establishes that Thomism define the course of studies in the seminaries].  Perhaps one can argue that the Encyclical was not an infallible document.  But, guys, you're getting into an area where the only thing you're going to accept is another Vatican Council. Read Lumen Gentium on Vatican I and then Vatican I about the immediate ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope and his pastoral authority.  He's not the President of the United States; he's the Pope.

Fr. Kimel says:

Regarding Barlaam and Aquinas, all that needs to be said is that Barlaam was not a Thomist. His relationship to Western scholasticism is debatable. The dispute between Barlaam and Palamas was an inter-Eastern dispute, a dispute between two Orthodox students of Dionysius the Areopagite.

Here is what the last Pope said.  He's on the road to canonization, guys:

The hesychast controversy marked another distinctive moment in Eastern theology. In the East, hesychasm means a method of prayer characterized by a deep tranquillity of the spirit, which is engaged in constant contemplation of God by invoking the name of Jesus. There was no lack of tension with the Catholic viewpoint on certain aspects of this practice. However, we should acknowledge the good intentions which guided the defense of this spiritual method, that is, to emphasize the concrete possibility that man is given to unite himself with the Triune God in the intimacy of his heart, in that deep union of grace which Eastern theology likes to describe with the particularly powerful term of "theosis", "divinization".

(This is the allocution of John Paul II referenced in our original post.  Emphasis added.)

This is hardly an unreserved endorsement of Hesychasm.

Fr. Kimel thinks that Barlaam wasn't arguing from a Catholic point of view.  It would take too long to refute that.  But wasn't one of Barlaam's major arguments a denial of the notion that there could be a difference between energy and essence?  Is this not a Thomist position?  Pope John Paul II didn't have Fr. Kimel's subtlety and seems to suggest that Hesychasm had issues with Catholic doctrine.  So how was this merely an intra-Orthodox dispute?  Based merely on differing interpretations of Dionysius?  Moreover, Fr. Kimel, how is it that Barlaam ended a Roman Catholic bishop?

(Update: 26/08/10:  It seems that Fr. Kimel is rehearsing the arguments of the late Dr. John Meyendorff concerning the nature of the conflict between Barlaam and Palamas.  A refutation of this line of argumentation by the late Dr. John Romanides, quite persuasive, can be found in two parts as follows: part I and part II.  Dr. Romanides does not see Barlaam as a Thomist, true, but he does see Barlaam as very much inserted into Latin theology.  However, the refusal to accept a distinction between essence and energy, and the assertion that only the essence  of God is uncreated and only that is knowable after death, all grace known in this life being created, is certainly a Thomist position.)

My only argument to you people is that you be consistent with your own Catholicism.

Orthodox Monk

We would encourage all our readers to go to the thread on the Byzantine Catholic Forum, to read all the posts carefully and to draw their own conclusions.  However, we should respond to a remark of Mr. Vernoski:

Regarding the silliness of anyone concluding that St. Gregory Palamas is not a saint in the Catholic Church because one does not have a proper quote from a pope specifically stating this, anyone making such a conclusion must also state that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't really consider the Twelve Apostles to be saints, that they give them only titles of honor because one can't find on a Google search a link to each Church's formal declaration of sainthood for them (an a reaffirming statement by each succeeding pope, patriarch and bishop). And, of course, this is the same for all saints.

Actually, Mr. Vernoski, things aren’t quite as fluid as all that.  There is an official list of saints of the Roman Catholic Church called the New Roman Martyrology.  You can actually buy a copy from your bookseller.  It’s published by the Vatican.  It’s an official Vatican document.  It lists all the saints of the Roman Catholic Church.  Now we admit that we haven’t checked who’s on it.  We’ll leave that to you.

(Update 26/8/10: But the even more fundamental issue is whether the theology recognized by the Catholic magisterium as normative accepts Hesychasm.  That’s not a trivial matter in conscience.  But if you are merely pretend praying, who cares?  The issue arises if you want to pray in the soul.  Then it matters what you believe.  But this is impossible to understand if you are merely pretend praying.)

For the record, here is our own contribution that was published on the thread on the Byzantine Catholic Forum:

Some Comments on this Thread from Orthodox Monk

We would like to thank the Byzantine Catholic Forum for accepting to post our response to the comments in this thread, a response that we are sending by email.  In reading over the posts on this thread, we were struck by a number of issues to which we would like to respond.  Let us take them one-by-one.

A number of posters have taken the position that as Eastern Rite Catholics they are bound only by the ecumenical councils, the first seven, that are accepted by the Orthodox.  Our understanding of this matter is that all Catholics, whether Roman or Eastern Rite, are bound by all the councils recognized by the Holy See as ecumenical.

Here is what Lumen Gentium says.  This is also called The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.  It is a document of Vatican II:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. … The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

(Chapter III On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church And In Particular On The Episcopate.  Emphasis added.  All excerpts are taken from translations found on the official Vatican Web Site.)

Now the assertion that the Roman Pontiff must approve a council for it to be considered ecumenical evidently arises out of a situation in the middle ages where a council met in Basel, we believe, and tried to force things on the Roman Church.  The emphasis on acceptance by a Pope for a council to be considered ecumenical responds to this perceived danger.  However, it also seems reasonable to infer from the above that what is also intended is the notion that if the Roman Pontiff says a council is ecumenical, it is.  That is, the list of ecumenical councils promulgated by the Roman Church is binding on all Catholics, whether Roman or Eastern Rite.  This is a matter of formal promulgation.  It isn’t something said off the cuff in a meeting.  The councils considered ecumenical by the Roman Pontiff can be found in any of the standard Roman Catholic collections of councils.  Hence, we understand that all Catholics, whether Roman or Eastern Rite, are bound by all the councils recognized as such by the Vatican, including Vatican I and II.  Now of course it would be necessary to confirm this with a Professor of Dogmatic Theology at a recognized Catholic university—say, Notre Dame.

Let us look here at the issue of the authority of Rome.  Because of our understanding of the binding nature of all ecumenical councils recognized as such by the Roman Pontiff, we understand that all Catholics, whether Roman or Eastern Rite, are bound by the contents of Lumen Gentium.  This passage concerns the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and the magisterium:

This Sacred Council [i.e. Vatican II], following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.           

(Chapter III On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church And In Particular On The Episcopate.  Emphasis added.)

This second passage refers to the role within this framework of the individual Churches, including the Eastern Rite Churches:

In virtue of this catholicity [of the Church] each individual part contributes through its special gifts to the good of the other parts and of the whole Church. Through the common sharing of gifts and through the common effort to attain fullness in unity, the whole and each of the parts receive increase. Not only, then, is the people of God made up of different peoples but in its inner structure also it is composed of various ranks. This diversity among its members arises either by reason of their duties, as is the case with those who exercise the sacred ministry for the good of their brethren, or by reason of their condition and state of life, as is the case with those many who enter the religious state and, tending toward holiness by a narrower path, stimulate their brethren by their example. Moreover, within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity (11*) and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it. Between all the parts of the Church there remains a bond of close communion whereby they share spiritual riches, apostolic workers and temporal resources. For the members of the people of God are called to share these goods in common, and of each of the Churches the words of the Apostle hold good: "According to the gift that each has received, administer it to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God".(123)

(Chapter II, On the People of God, Emphasis added.)

Now, converts to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, we believe that this is saying that nothing in an Eastern Church that joins to Rome can legitimately be retained which stands in serious dogmatic contradiction to positions of the Church of Rome.  Correct us if we are wrong.  However, if it were otherwise, why would reunion with the Orthodox Churches be so difficult?

If we go to the Decree On The Catholic Churches Of The Eastern Rite Orientalium Ecclesiarum, we find this:

2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)

3. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.

Hence, what the Eastern Rite Catholic Church retains when it comes into union with Rome is its rite, defined here as ‘liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage’.

However, this passage from Lumen Gentium might be important:

By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties.(37*)

(Chapter III On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church And In Particular On The Episcopate)

Now the issue, clearly, is whether an element of ‘liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and [theological and] spiritual heritage’ that stood in contradiction to a dogmatic position taught ex cathedra or even otherwise by the Roman Pontiff could be retained.  It is here that the Hesychast controversy enters in.  For as we pointed out, Thomism was around the turn of the 20^th Century declared an authoritative exposition of the Catholic faith.  But the argument of Barlaam against St Gregory Palamas was a Thomist argument.  And Pope John-Paul II was a neo-Thomist, so his remarks on Hesychasm have to be read in that light.

A number of members of the Byzantine Catholic Forum submitted comments to the posts on our blog that we did not post.  One person taxed us harshly in an ad hominem attack.  When we asked for more reasoned arguments she sent us an article in broken English by someone who had published it on ‘Suite 101’, a paid Wikipedia.  One of her arguments was that we did not grasp that there was a Hesychasm of the West because our definition of Hesychasm was too narrow.  Given that another poster has claimed that the Jesus Prayer had no intrinsic connection to Hesychasm, implying that Hesychasm was some sort of mind-expanding yoga, we are simultaneously being attacked for being too narrow about Hesychasm and, it seems, too broad.

So let us look at what Hesychasm is.  As we pointed out on our blog, there is a historical evolution, broadly summarized by the Philokalia, that might be called the Hesychastic tradition of the Orthodox Church.  When we look at the matter historically, we are necessarily grounded in historical specificity.  That means that the claim that there is a Hesychasm of the West just won’t wash.  There is a mysticism of the West; that we don’t deny, without passing judgement on its validity one way or another.  However, Western mysticism is just not historical Hesychasm.  To see this all you have to do is read St Diadochos of Photiki and St John of the Ladder.  These authors speak of certain techniques.  Certain strategies of what a Westerner might call contemplation.  They also speak of grace.  They have a certain anthropology that underlies their conception of the mystical journey.  St. John of the Ladder speaks of restraining the immaterial mind within the material body.  He also speaks of the Jesus Prayer.  It seems that he intends that the mind be brought into the heart practising the Jesus Prayer and that there the Hesychast practise a mental ascesis of the rejection of tempting thoughts.  Now without saying that the Westerner does not have contemplation, no one in the West has ever practised what these authors are discussing.  Western contemplation is different, even when it is apophatic.  The author that comes closest is St. John Cassian.  And indeed certain aspects of the Hesychast tradition entered into the concrete Western traditions through St. John Cassian.  But by the time we get to the Carmelites or the Carthusians, there is no longer any great similarity between Hesychasm and Western mystical traditions.  This is the sort of historical fact that someone might study in graduate school.

Now Fr. Kimel in his very balanced discussion raises the question as to whether a Carmelite or Carthusian might practise Hesychasm without the theological apparatus of St. Gregory Palamas.  First of all, the distinction between essence and energy (or ‘action’ or ‘activity’) is already found in the Cappadocian Fathers in the 4^th Century.  It is not an innovation of St Gregory Palamas.  Next, the Carmelites and the Carthusians have their own mystical traditions which are in harmony with the teachings of the Roman Pontiff.  Why would they want to try out something new that might not be in harmony?  What we were arguing in our blog post is that to the extent that there is a different underlying anthropology and theology of grace in the method you are using (Hesychasm) from what you believe (Thomism, neo-Thomism, etc.) you are going to create a tension (or worse) in your spiritual practice.  If you are a Westerner, why would you bother?  Do one or the other.  If you are an Eastern Rite Catholic, there is very great room for personal confusion or worse.  And we pointed out what we thought were the three options that faced the Eastern Rite Catholic faced with the possibility of choosing to practise Hesychasm or not.

The Byzantine Catholic Forum Takes on Our Post on the Jesus Prayer

Someone from Eagle River AK who goes by the name of ‘aramis’ submitted a hit-and-run comment on our post from five years ago (!) on the Jesus Prayer in the Eastern Rite Catholic Church. We wondered what to do and decided after reading the series of comments on our post on the Byzantine Catholic Forum to make the following reply.

First let us post the original comment by ‘desertman’ on the Forum:

[link by ‘desertman’ to Jesus Prayer in the Eastern Rite Catholic Church]

I'm looking for some Eastern Catholic responses to this article. It is from an Orthodox blog, which questions the possibility of a Catholic truly embracing the serious practice of the Jesus Prayer and hesychasm without creating serious tension with his Catholic identity.

I'd like to think the author is wrong, but he makes some interesting points.

Someone named ‘aramis’ replied as follows. ‘Aramis’ is the person who wished to comment directly on our blog:

Thing is, it's possible to embrace the Jesus prayer without full-blown hesychasm. Just like one can embrace the Hail Mary without embracing the full cultus of the Dominican Rosary*.

Mind-altering extended prayer (like hesychasts do) can be done with just about any repetitive prayer.

Even the Dominican Rosary can become a mind-altering system of prayer.

The monk writing this is engaging in polemic, as well, intentional or otherwise. St. Gregory is on the calendar of several Eastern Catholic churches.

*The Dominican Rosary is the proper term for the Rosary as commonly used in the Roman Church; it was introduced in its present form by St. Dominic for his friars.

Let’s take the first point that ‘aramis’ makes, ‘it's possible to embrace the Jesus prayer without full-blown hesychasm. … Mind-altering extended prayer (like hesychasts do) can be done with just about any repetitive prayer.”

Correct us if we are wrong, but what we understand ‘aramis’ to be saying here is that:

1. The Jesus Prayer is not intrinsically linked to Hesychasm;

2. The Jesus Prayer can be practised without the practice of Hesychasm; and

3. ‘Mind-altering extended prayer (like hesychasts do) can be done with just about any repetitive prayer’.

Let us look at the historical record.

The first recorded reference to the use of the Jesus Prayer is given in a text dated c.450 AD. This text is the Gnostic Chapters, written by St Diadochos of Photiki, who was a contemporary of St. Augustine. We have posted a complete translation of the original Greek of this text, with commentary, from the sources chrétiennes critical edition. In this text St. Diadochos describes the practice of the Jesus Prayer 24 hours a day, even in sleep, through the Grace of the Holy Spirit. (For our translation go to the archives for August, 2008, and for our commentary go to the archives starting in March, 2009 and ending in May, 2009.)

In one of his articles, the late Professor Antoine Guillaumont discusses archaeological evidence for the use of the Jesus Prayer in 4th or 5th Century Egypt (i.e. among the Fathers of the Egyptian Desert).

This archaeological evidence is borne out by the Conferences of St John Cassian (c. 420), where Cassian describes the practice he learned in Egypt of the repetition of a passage from the Psalms. It is clear that St. John Cassian is describing a practice that is set into the context of late 4th Century Egyptian monasticism in Skete, where he was based during his stay in Egypt.

The lives of the 4th Century Egyptian St. Pachomios (see the Cistercian Studies edition) provide oblique evidence for the practice described by St. John Cassian.

The next explicit reference to the Jesus Prayer is to be found in the Ladder of Divine Ascent of St John of Sinai (7th Century). While that work is largely aimed at coenobites, it has a few sections on Hesychasm. St John of Sinai was himself a Hesychast for 40 years. St John of Sinai clearly treats the Jesus Prayer as a part of the practice of Hesychasm.

There is the work, sometimes called On Sobriety, of St Hesychios of the Burning Bush (8th C.?). This work bases itself on the Ladder, Evagrius Ponticus and on a number of other early ascetical authors to describe a method of Hesychasm which integrates the use of the Jesus Prayer into the practice of mental ascesis in the tradition deriving from the 4th Egyptian desert.

So the first point that ‘aramis’ is making is nonsense. All the historical evidence available shows that the Jesus Prayer started out integrated into the practice of mental ascesis formulated in the 4th Century Egyptian desert. That is what Hesychasm is—a tradition of mental ascesis. The practice of the Jesus Prayer in this context was largely for hermits and semi-hermits. It did not start out as a separate devotion later to be integrated into a method of ‘mind-altering extended prayer’ as ‘aramis’ puts it. If ‘aramis’ has documentary evidence for his assertions that is unavailable to us in our ignorance, we will be happy to follow up on his citations. If he doesn’t, perhaps he could justify on a reasoned basis his implicit assertion that the Jesus Prayer is not intrinsically linked to Hesychasm.

Let us turn the second point of ‘aramis’, that the Jesus Prayer can be practiced without the practice of Hesychasm. Well, it is true that you can do anything you want. If you want to repeat the Jesus Prayer orally 40 times a minute for 20 minutes, or whatever, who is going to stop you? However, the original setting of the Jesus Prayer is the Orthodox Hesychastic tradition briefly sketched above. A witness to that tradition is the Philokalia as collected by St Makarios of Corinth in the late 18th Century and published at the same time through the good offices of his friend, St Nikodemos the Athonite.

We wrote in our original post:

Basically, the Eastern Rite Catholic has these three options open to him: He can pursue Hesychasm and the full form of the Jesus Prayer in an Orthodox way… Or, he can attempt to reinterpret the Jesus Prayer in a Catholic way—most likely by turning it into a Catholic devotion… Or he can drop the Jesus Prayer and Hesychasm, and turn to an essentially Western Catholic spirituality. Historically, very few people have chosen the first alternative; more have chosen the second; and most have chosen the third.

It seems to us that ‘aramis’ is advancing the second option as a considered response to ‘desertman’. If he isn’t, then perhaps he could give us a reasoned explanation as to what he is doing. What would the practice of the Jesus Prayer without Hesychasm look like, ‘aramis’?

Let us turn to the third point of ‘aramis’, that ‘mind-altering extended prayer (like hesychasts do) can be done with just about any repetitive prayer’. It seems to us that the strategy of ‘aramis’ is here to dismiss Hesychasm as some sort of yoga that isn’t actually Christian—in other words to make it something that is not only non-essential to the practice of the Jesus Prayer but perhaps even suspect. Proof, ‘aramis’?

We would recommend that interested readers refer to the Gnostic Chapters of St. Diadochos of Photiki. There, St. Diadochos explicitly integrates into baptismal theology the practice in a Hesychastic context of the Jesus Prayer. He ties the continuous repetition of the Jesus Prayer to the grace of the Holy Spirit.

It is true that there is nothing ‘sacred’ about the particular formula, ‘Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.’ St Ioannikios used a completely different formula, as did St. Nicholas Velimirovich. But these saints were integrated into the Orthodox monastic and ascetical tradition. St Nicholas Velimirovich used to visit St. Silouan the Athonite at the Russian monastery on Athos. They were contemporaries. However, ‘aramis’ is saying something quite different. He is saying, virtually, that Hesychasm is an abuse of the use of the Jesus Prayer.

Let us turn to the next point of ‘aramis’: ‘St. Gregory is on the calendar of several Eastern Catholic churches.’ This was the substance of the comment that ‘aramis’ wished to add to our post. This may be so, ‘aramis’. The question is whether from within a Roman Catholic context St Gregory Palamas is legitimately on those calendars. We will return to this.

We will continue with the comments of ‘StuartK’ from Falls Church, VA:

…As with many Orthodox polemicists, the author operates under the assumption that Latin Catholicism is normative for all Catholics (something not true since at least Vatican II), and that there is some inherent dichotomy between Latin spirituality and the concept of uncreated energy. Needless to say, his assumptions are wrong and his understanding of Catholic ecclesiology and doctrine hopelessly out of date. It would not surprise me in the least if Orthodox Monk was a recent convert to Orthodoxy from one of the Protestant denominations.

Let us look at these assertions:

the author operates under the assumption that Latin Catholicism is normative for all Catholics (something not true since at least Vatican II)

‘StuartK’, could you argue this with citations from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, one of the documents of Vatican II? Or even the decree on the Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches of the same Council? While Latin Catholicism is not per se normative for Eastern-rite Catholics, Eastern-rite Catholics are still, within the Roman Catholic context, subject to the magisterium of Rome and to the immediate ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. Hence you just can’t grab anything you like from Orthodoxy (except the ‘mind-altering extended prayer’ of Hesychasm, it seems) without reference to what Rome teaches.

the author operates under the assumption … that there is some inherent dichotomy between Latin spirituality and the concept of uncreated energy.

Since the Roman Catholic Church has officially taught that Thomism is a normative interpretation of Roman Catholicism, since Eastern-Rite Catholics are subject to the magisterium of Rome and since Thomism teaches that all grace (‘energies of God’) is created, could you argue this point in more fullness on the basis of authoritative Roman Catholic documents and theologians?

Needless to say, his assumptions are wrong and his understanding of Catholic ecclesiology and doctrine hopelessly out of date.

Could you argue this on the basis of the documents of Vatican II cited above, or even other authoritative pronouncements of the Pope?

It would not surprise me in the least if Orthodox Monk was a recent convert to Orthodoxy from one of the Protestant denominations.

Senator Joe McCarthy used to haul people before his Senate committee and ask them if they were or ever had been members of the Communist Party of the USA. Some of them used to take the Fifth. This is what is known as an ad hominem argument. ‘He must be a commie. Don’t listen to him.’

We’re not going to take the Fifth. You’re wrong on both counts.

We glanced at our post from five years ago in the context of the remarks on the Byzantine Catholic forum. It struck us that our article was much deeper than the remarks were allowing for. Perhaps the posters and others should read the article more carefully and respond to the article in good Catholic argumentative fashion on the basis of reasoned arguments that explicitly cite authoritative pronouncements. Otherwise, we’re just fooling ourselves, kids.

Update, August 10, 2010: See also this post on Pentecostalism and the Jesus Prayer and this second post with further comments on the Byzantine Catholic Forum thread.

An Email Orthodox Monk Sent

To: forum@byzcath.org

Subject: Great Schema

Dear Sirs:

Please refer to:

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/292747/2/Univ%20and%20other%20Studite%20Lavras

If you go to that thread you will see that near the end there is a discussion of the Great Schema which references three postings on our blog, Orthodox Monk. The post which makes the references was made by Fr Anthony at 12:47 PM 12 June 2009. These are the three posts from our blog which are referenced:

http://orthodoxmonk.blogspot.com/2005/10/vows-of-tonsure-to-great-schema.html

http://orthodoxmonk.blogspot.com/2005/11/discussion-of-asceticism-and-vows-of.html

http://orthodoxmonk.blogspot.com/2007/05/rubrics-and-service-of-great-and.html

We would like to comment. Would you please post the following comment on the thread in question.

The comment begins here>

We see that our blog has been referenced in a discussion of the differences between the Great Schema and other levels of tonsure in the Orthodox Church.

We are pleased that our resources are being used and we would like to add some further remarks to the discussion.

There is a difference in both historical tradition and standard in the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches as regards the Great Schema.

The present practice in the Greek tradition, especially on Mt Athos, is after the novitiate to tonsure to a lesser degree and then after say 10 years to tonsure to the Great Schema. There is considerable variation in practice. Unmarried priests in the world who are tonsured monks are ordinarily tonsured to the Small Schema only. If you come across a Metropolitan in the Greek Church who is a monk of the Great Schema, you will almost certainly find that he was actually a monk in a monastery who became a priest and then was assigned pastoral duties in the world, these pastoral duties culminating in his being raised to episcopal rank.

According to the argument of St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, from whom current Athonite practice derives, the Small Schema and the Great Schema confer the same obligations, so why should the monk be deprived all his life of the grace of the Great Schema? (In fact, there is one vow in the Great Schema which is not in the Small Schema: 'Do you renounce the world and those in the world?') St Nikodemos' argument has prevailed on Mt Athos and there the understanding of the Great Schema is that it is the normal state of the Orthodox monk--the lesser degrees are for special purposes or reasons, so to speak.

It was not always that way in the Athonite tradition and this understanding dates from St Nikodemos.

We ourselves do not know the historical details, but as we understand it in the Russian tradition the norm for the monk is the Small Schema. In the Russian tradition, the Great Schema is for very accomplished monks who wish to proceed deeper into asceticism. It is not the case that these monks would necessarily become hermits. St Silouan the Athonite was a monk of the Great Schema but lived in the coenobium all his monastic life. Conversely, St Seraphim of Sarov did not consider himself worthy of being made a monk of the Great Schema and died a monk of the Small Schema. But he lived for many years as a hermit. We have heard at least one story which indicates that in the Slavic traditions on Mt Athos the Confessor will only give the blessing for the monk to be made a monk of the Great Schema if he is persuaded that the monk's previous life has been faultless--i.e. lived to a very high standard. We understand that in the Russian tradition, the Great Schema is conferred near the end of life and we have heard someone joke that in the Russian tradition to be tonsured a monk of the Great Schema you have to be at the level of an Optina starets.

This appears to be the orientation that St Nikodemos was combating. He took the position that the monk of the Great Schema is the fully equipped soldier who is battling with the enemy. The Russian tradition makes the monk of the Small Schema the fully equipped soldier who is battling the enemy and reserves the Great Schema to the hero.

It is characteristic that in present Greek practice, the Great Schema is conferred by a priest (ideally one who is himself a monk of the Great Schema; this would be the Abbot or one of the monastery priests in the presence of the Abbot) whereas in Russian practice, the Great Schema is conferred by a bishop. We have never heard of cases where a Greek Schema-Monk goes to a Russian jurisdiction, so we have no idea what the Russians would do with tonsure by a priest. We imagine that they would let it be and not retonsure.

We have been told by a native member of the Russian Church that the rules of that Church do not allow a (Great) Schema-Monk to be raised to bishop (the vow of renunciation of the world is perhaps what they are looking at). Hence, cases to the contrary would be the exception rather than the rule. But we are not familiar with all of the details of such things.

Thanks very much.

--

Orthodox Monk