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.

Prelest and Positive Thinking

Those of our readers who want to know why we’ve been silent may be pleased to see that we have taken time off from our current time-consuming project to answer an email we have just received.  There are a number of other emails that are in the queue but we have been too busy to deal with them.  We hope to get to them in due time.

Someone, let us call her ‘Martha’, has written to us.  We replied to her as follows:

Our policy is only to answer emails publicly on the blog.  We remove all information that could be used to identify you.  We also edit for clarity and style.  Is this acceptable to you?

To which Martha replied:

Sure, as long as you keep my identity private!  Thank you!

Here is Martha’s email, extensively edited for clarity:

Hi Orthodox Monk,

I’m curious to know why you guys are promoting the ‘positive thinking’ idea that your neo-elders are teaching.  Such as in the books

Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain

The Gurus, the Young Man and Elder Paisios

and the book Wounded by Love.

These teachings are nothing more than ‘New-Age’ and ‘Occult’ terminologies as well as practices!  They have never before been used by true orthodox elders and none of the holy fathers spoke about such things nor are they found anywhere in the Holy Bible.  To me this indicates that Orthodox Christianity is being blended in with the Occult, and thus slowly taken us away from God.  Are we not supposed to trust God in all matters?  Not our own self, and our positive or negative thoughts, given us through our own man-made power?  To attract this or that from energies or within ourselves (a power or energy that we do not possess) yet Elder Paisios claims that we do.  This is a demonic and completely un-Orthodox teaching!!!

Are these new elders in prelest?  Maybe you could shed some light as to why it is not only being promoted but encouraged for spiritual enlightenment.

And while we’re on the topic of enlightenment, here is my next question: why and how do all of Elder Ephraim’s Abbots and Abbesses obtain the gift of clairvoyance so easily?  Isn’t this supposed to be given (maybe) only to those who have accomplished great ascetic struggles in extreme humility, and only if God wills?  Not every elder obtains all the holy gifts or even seeks them, yet the Ephraim monastics work in a way opposite to this.  This is the exact same way that the Charismatic Protestant movement goes about obtaining the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway I didn’t mean to upset anyone; I’m only inquiring so as to obtain true answers and knowledge for myself (I hope in fact that you are a real monk).

Asking you to please keep my identity private.

Thank you, and waiting for your response.

Martha

Let us take the issues one by one.

First we didn’t realize that we, Orthodox Monk, were promoting the ‘positive thinking’ that is found in the books that Martha lists.  Also we didn’t realize that we were promoting the ‘neo-elders’ that Martha speaks about.  Indeed, as near as we can make out we have made a serious effort over the years not to promote or to denigrate one or another elder.  Guess we weren’t as careful as we thought we were.

Now, let us run through these books to make sure that we’re all on the same page.  The first book, Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, was written by Hieromonk Christodoulos who at the time he knew Elder Paisios was a monk at the Monastery of Koutloumousiou, a short walk from Elder Paisios’ cell or house.  We understand that Hieromonk Christodoulos met with Elder Paisios a number of times and that he took notes of his conversations as soon as he returned to Koutloumousiou after speaking with the Elder.  Our friend George who knows far more about Mt Athos than we do says that the conversations that Hieromonk Christodoulos presents ‘ring true’ as presenting the real Elder Paisios.  We ourselves have not read the next book,  The Gurus, the Young Man and Elder Paisios, and have no comment on it.

The third book, Wounded by Love, is the English translation of an early edition of a book called in Greek Bios kai Logoi.  That book came about as follows.  Elder Porphyrios permitted two of his disciples, now nuns, to record a number of conversations with him.  The transcripts of those conversations became the book in question.  So the book is really just the transcripts of a number of conversations or discourses of Elder Porphyrios with two of his disciples.  It is not a ‘set-piece’ theological work by the Elder.

We will discuss Elder Paisios, Elder Porphyrios and Elder Ephraim separately.

Now the first point to make is that Elder Paisios wrote a number of books himself, which are to be found in English translation.  It might be useful for Martha to find these books and read them so as to get direct from the horse’s mouth what Elder Paisios thought and taught.  Here is a list of those books (all available in English):

Saint Arsenios the Cappadocian

Elder Hadji-Georgis the Athonite

Athonite Fathers and Athonite Matters

Epistles

These books are published by the Holy Hesychasterion of St John the Theologian, Souroti, Greece.  That is where Elder Paisios was buried in accordance with his own wishes.

There is also a series of books published by the Holy Hesychasterion of St John the Theologian that have been constructed after the Elder’s death by assembling on a thematic basis notes and recordings of sayings by Elder Paisios collected by the nuns of the Hesychasterion, who are the Elder’s disciples and formal literary executors.  While these books are certainly of some weight in understanding Elder Paisios’ teaching, they would rank second to the books actually written and edited by Elder Paisios while he was alive.  The volumes presently published are (all available in English unless otherwise noted):

Spiritual Counsels 1: With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man

Spiritual Counsels 2: Spiritual Awakening

Spiritual Counsels 3: Spiritual Struggle

Spiritual Counsels 4: Family Life

Spiritual Counsels 5: Passions and Virtues (not translated)

In the third rank would be books written by someone who knew Elder Paisios and decided to write a book about him.  Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain by Hieromonk Christodoulos, discussed above, would belong to this category.  Among such books, the best in our opinion is the one by Elder Isaac called Elder Paisios of Mount Athos.  Elder Isaac, since deceased, was a personal disciple of Elder Paisios.

It should be noted that when we recommend a book, we recommend it in the original language.  We have no opinion one way or another on the quality of a translation.  A translation is an interpretation of the author’s meaning, and in the case of a group translation, an interpretation by a committee.

Now let us begin with Martha’s criticisms, as near as we can make them out.  First of all, we were rather surprised to be taxed with teaching the doctrine of Elder Paisios on positive and negative thoughts.  We didn’t think we had addressed the issue.  Be that as it may, we understand Elder Paisios’ teaching to be as follows.  A monk or nun or layperson would come to Elder Paisios and express dissatisfaction with their elder, their abbot, their abbess, their spouse, their children, their parents, their job and so on.  Often, we imagine—we weren’t there—these people would be depressed and would want to ‘vent’.  Forgive us, Martha, but your remarks seem similar.  Now what Elder Paisios would say—as we understand it!—to these people is that they were allowing themselves to be swept up in negative thoughts.  What they should do, Elder Paisios would say, was concentrate on positive thoughts.

Martha thinks this is wrong, New-Age and Occult if we understand her correctly.  Certainly not to be found among the elders of old and not to be found in Scripture.

The basis of Elder Paisios’ teaching is to be found in a tradition in the Philokalia that goes back to very early times.  The great systematizer of this method as it entered into the Orthodox Hesychastic tradition is Evagrius Ponticus (344 – 399) but the method is also found in Neilus of Ankara (died 430) and Mark the Ascetic (5^th Century), of whose works it was said, ‘Sell everything and buy Mark.’  The method is referenced in Diadochos of Photiki (5^th Century) and other writers of the period; the fullest discussion is perhaps to be found in the Ladder of Divine Ascent by John of Sinai (7^th Century).  It is an integral part of the Hesychastic program of Hesychius of the Burning Bush (8^th Century).  It is referenced by the Gregory Palamas (14^th Century).  So the foundation of what Elder Paisios is saying is certainly Orthodox and certainly taught by some very big names in Orthodox spirituality.

In brief what these authors discuss is the genesis of an impassioned thought in the mind.  Normally the cause of such an impassioned thought is a temptation by a demon, although Evagrius for example recognizes that people can quite often get on with a tempting thought without a demon on the basis of their own emotional tendencies to sin.  One of the demons is specialized for sowing thoughts of sorrow (depression) but there are other demons of envy, malice, rancour and so on.  And the demons would have no work if we didn’t have emotional tendencies to sin that corresponded to their specialties.

The best treatment of the emotional tendencies to sin and the evolution of a tempting thought is found in the Ladder of Divine Ascent.  John of Sinai’s treatment is largely based on Evagrius although he produces a much more refined analysis.

So basically what Elder Paisios was saying to these people is that they were allowing themselves to engage with tempting thoughts sown by a demon or by their own emotional tendencies to sin.  Since that was not healthy and interfering with these peoples’ lives, better for them to make an effort to think positive thoughts instead of the negative thoughts sown by a demon, their own passions or even on account of some biochemical imbalance.  (Since Elder Paisios on occasion sent people to see a secular psychiatrist he would surely have recognized the possibility that there might be an organic issue that needed medical attention.)

We ourselves would remark that there are people who always look on the dark side, always focusing on what can go wrong.  There are also people who always look on the bright side—the personal executioner employed by the late Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, was said to be a jovial fellow with nary a depressive bone in his body—and that is probably preferable to being depressive.  However, to make a serious decision it helps to be realistic, neither unrealistically depressive nor unrealistically optimistic.

Now this is our interpretation and we see nothing wrong with counselling people not to succumb to the temptation to think negative thoughts.  Now Martha is correct that for most people the only way for them to resist such negative thoughts is to pray.  We doubt that Elder Paisios would disagree.  However his point, we think, is that unless you recognize that you are being foolish in accepting to think such negative thoughts it’s not even going to occur to you to ask Jesus to save you from them.

Now for the rest, we do not know what Martha thinks that Elder Paisios taught that is so objectionable about inner powers and so forth.  We are quite sure, however, that Elder Paisios was quite Orthodox.

Now, as for Elder Porphyrios.  We are not aware of a similar teaching about negative thoughts by Elder Porphyrios, and certainly not in Bios kai Logoi.  What we recall from that book is a discussion of the eternal Church, Elder Porphyrios’ reliving of the Apocalypse to John on Patmos and so on.  Of course we could be wrong.  It’s been a while since we read the book.

Now is Elder Porphyrios teaching New Age and Occultism?  We hope not.  He was just made a saint of the Orthodox Church by the Ecumenical Patriarch at the beginning of December, less than a month ago.  So it’s not Elder Porphyrios any more, it’s Saint Porphyrios.

Next, Elder Ephraim of Arizona.  Martha’s complaint does not seem to be with Elder Ephraim himself, who George tells us is highly respected on Mt Athos, as having been a major factor in the renewal of Mount Athos by the disciples of Elder Joseph the Hesychast.  Martha’s complaint seems to be that all of Ephraim’s Abbots and Abbesses are also clairvoyant.  Too easy she thinks.  We ourselves have no doubt that Elder Ephraim is a holy man.  We ourselves do not doubt that he is also clairvoyant.  However, we have no information on his disciples, if they are clairvoyant and if so where they got it.  The statement in the Ladder of Divine Ascent by St John of Sinai, that it is shameful for an elder to pray that a disciple receive a charism that he himself does not have, says to us that if Elder Ephraim’s disciples are genuinely clairvoyant it is because Elder Ephraim prayed for them to receive the charism.  However, as we said, we have no opinion on the matter.

What Martha could do is ask Elder Ephraim.

Now what about us?  Orthodox Monk?  Martha is worried that we might be a disciple of Elder Ephraim.  Well, again, she could always ask Elder Ephraim.  For how would she know if we were telling the truth if we said we were?  Or if we said we weren’t?

We said all we have to say on our monastic state and affiliation in a post called Who is Orthodox Monk?.

Martha replied with two emails, which she has also given us permission to discuss publicly.

Here they are, again edited extensively for clarity:

[1^st Email:]  Thanks for posting in reply, but let me correct you, Orthodox Monk.  I never said or implied that I was worried about your being affiliated with Elder Ephraim.  I only asked you to which monastery you belong (meaning name and country).  I did also ask from curiosity if you were under Ephraim (which you still have not answered).  Please do not confuse my words.

Secondly you made it sound like I was attacking the elders, which clearly I wasn’t!  If you read the books I mentioned you would clearly see where I got my questions of concern.  As for the Ephraimites I am sure you have heard all the rumours circulating about them, especially the death of Scott Nevins.  Now why couldn’t Elder Ephraim save his life?  And have helped him since he lived there 7 years?  That is, if Elder Ephraim is not in prelest?  Before you judge anyone on your blog or accuse them of criticizing, just remember that just because it didn’t happen to you, it doesn’t make it any less true.  I thank you for your response but obviously you are with world orthodoxy (ecumenism) so I expected no less.

[2^nd Email:]  Also one more thing: There are many cults and false elders out there.  There is nothing wrong with people doing their own homework by asking questions to learn and to discern the spirit of the times.  If this troubles anyone then this is an indication that they are trying to mask something.  True Orthodox Christian people should be proud of those who ask questions and want to learn the true meaning of things.  They should encourage questions and not oppose them, and not expect only blind obedience to whoever claims to be an elder or even Orthodox.

Here’s our answer:  Martha, first of all, no one is obliged to read our blog.  If you don’t like it you don’t have to read it.  We have written several hundred thousand words on the blog (enough for a number of books) and everything is there for anyone who wants to read it.  Our views should be quite clear.  No, we haven’t given you a direct answer whether we are or are not affiliated with Elder Ephraim.  To do so one way or another would be to say more about ourselves than we care to.  If that bothers you, then stop reading the blog.

Next, of the three books you mentioned, we have read two; we haven’t read the Gurus book.  It was admittedly some time ago that we read the two books but we don’t remember any questions arising in our mind of the sort you are posing.

Next, no we are not up to date on ‘the Ephraimites I am sure you have heard all the rumours circulating about them, especially the death of Scott Nevins’.  By and large we avoid that.  Sorry.  In particular we have not studied what happened in the case of Scott Nevins and have no intention of doing so.  Nor do we intend to spend any time on the possibility that Elder Ephraim is in prelest.  It’s just not who we are, Martha.

Next, you write ‘Before you judge anyone on your blog or accuse them of criticizing, just remember that just because it didn’t happen to you, it doesn’t make it any less true.  I thank you for your response but obviously you are with world orthodoxy (ecumenism) so I expected no less.’  We are not sure what you mean.  Do you mean that we are criticizing someone else or that we are criticizing you?  Our strongest criticism of you was that you have a tendency to listen to your bad thoughts.  If it is you that you mean we have been criticizing, then ‘because it didn’t happen to you, it doesn’t make it any less true’ suggests that you have had some bad experience, unless we completely misunderstand what you are saying.  If you have had a bad experience, then we suggest you speak to a clergyman face to face.  A blog is not the place to sort out personal bad experiences.

Martha replied.  We will let her have the last word:

I did not have nor do I have any intention to read your blog.  I only wrote a simple email on the ‘positive thinking’ idea, which you took way out of proportion to my intent, in cold heartless replies.  No, I have not had any bad experiences and even if I had that would not excuse the fact that the Ephraimites are in prelest!  Moreover, there are many complaints about them from thousands who have had similar experiences.  You can choose to cover up for the wrongdoings of the Ephraimites but just don’t forget that people are not stupid!!!  The truth always comes out in the end!  And I don’t even believe that you live in an Orthodox monastery let alone that you are a tonsured monk, just going by your cold accusatory, assuming replies.  I am done talking with you!

Martha later sent us another email:

Dear Orthodox Monk:

I have realized that I made a terrible mistake with regard to my ‘positive thinking’ query and about Elder Ephraim being in prelest.  I did some more research and I have found out that I was terribly wrong.  Thank you.

Back Beat 2

After reading our post Back Beat on Orthodoxy and Classical Music, the person who originally submitted the comment discussed wrote to us to ask us further about the matter of classical music and Orthodoxy. The person is a classical musician who is contemplating converting from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy. We hope there are any number of such persons so that we are not giving anything away about this person’s identity.

First of all, our interlocutor, let us call her Alice, originally made her comment under a pseudonym. She later apologized to us for that. We didn’t think an apology necessary. The Internet is a dangerous place and it behoves all of us to be careful. A pseudonym is perfectly in order on the Internet. So Alice it is. And let us say that Alice lives in Manhattan, which most assuredly is not her real residence.

Alice is quite worried that Orthodoxy might not accept classical music, which she loves. First, let us be plain: no one is going to tell anyone that they have to stop being a classical musician to enter the Orthodox Church. That’s just not going to happen. There are, we suppose, some professions that are incompatible with Orthodoxy. We don’t think classical musician is one of them. We suppose that being a rock musician specializing in dark, Gothic music might be incompatible with Orthodoxy but that is not what Alice is asking about. She isn’t a dark, Gothic musician; she is a professional classical musician.

So Alice can join the Orthodox Church and continue her profession.

However, what is the issue about classical music? Well, actually there isn’t one. The Orthodox Church doesn’t have a dogmatic position on classical music. It’s not in the stuff you have to believe to become Orthodox. So why then would dark, demonic music be forbidden?

Because it’s dark and demonic. We suppose that if there were a branch of classical music that could be construed to be dark and demonic then a sensitive confessor would persuade Alice to stop playing and listening to it. Is there such a dark and demonic classical music? We frankly don’t know. Wagner springs to mind; we mentioned in Back Beat that Satie was a Rosicrucian. But this is not something as obvious as your local stoned-out Satan-worshipping heavy-metal rock band.

Let’s look at some classical composers. First, Bach. Bach was an intensely devout Lutheran. No one can listen to his religious music without grasping that he believed. Now consider Rachmaninoff. It’s not entirely clear whether Rachmaninoff was ever properly inserted into the Orthodox Church. He was baptized; he was Orthodox; he didn’t seem to practise his Orthodoxy and in some cases seemed to be living a sinful life. We’re not in the Rachmaninoff-judgement business but a question could be raised whether he was a candidate for sainthood. However, his Orthodox liturgical music can be quite pleasant to listen to. However, and this is important, it is ultimately sentimental. But then ultimately so is Bach sentimental.

We suppose a musicologist would discuss the differences—apart from differences of genre—as between Bach and Rachmaninoff. He or she might want to argue that Bach is musically deeper than Rachmaninoff. We would tend to agree even though we think that both composers are working with the sentiments. But Bach was Lutheran and Rachmaninoff was Orthodox. As we can see, things get very complicated.

There are all kinds of genres in Western classical music and composers composing in those genres of all different beliefs and states of virtue. This is also true of performers of Western classical music. There is no possible way to categorize all of Western classical music—or even its performers—according to Orthodox spiritual standards.

So what, really, is the issue that Elder Paisios was raising that we referred to in the previous post?

Well, first of all, Elder Paisios is in Heaven and we will have to wait to ask him for clarification. We don’t know precisely what he meant. He was speaking to a specific person in a specific place. He was speaking for that person in that place. His words might not apply as a rule of Orthodox faith in a general setting—and certainly Orthodox dogma can never be defined by the words of one Elder only.

However, what we think Elder Paisios meant—and we could be wrong—is this. Elder Paisios was speaking to a member of the Orthodox Church about the personal effect that music has on a person. What he was saying is that ultimately Western classical music remains on a human, sentimental plane. Rock music remains on a demonic plane. Only Byzantine chant has a spiritual effect on a person.

Our friend George has spent more time on Mt Athos than we have. He told us of once attending the patronal festival of St Panteleimon at the Russian Monastery of St Panteleimon on Mt Athos. This would be about 50 years after the death of St Silouan (+1938), who himself was a monk of St Panteleimon’s. The patronal festival that George attended at St Panteleimon’s was an all-night vigil. George remarked that in the canons of Orthros the Russian cantors alternated with the Greek cantors. First the Russians would sing a hymn from the service book, then the Greeks would sing the next one. The Russian cantors were among the best Russian cantors of Athos and Russia whereas the Greek cantors were among the best cantors of the Greek monasteries of Athos. The Russians chanted in the Westernized chant in vogue among Russians whereas the Greeks chanted in the classical Byzantine chant of Athos. George said that when the Russians chanted he felt greatly moved emotionally and tears came to his eyes but when the Greeks chanted he felt great spiritual sobriety. “It was weird,” he said to us, “One moment the Russians would be chanting their hymn from the service book and my eyes would be full of tears and the next moment the Greeks would be chanting the next hymn from the same service book and I’d be soberly saying the Jesus Prayer in something straight out of the Philokalia. Then the Greeks would finish and the Russians would start the next hymn and I would go back to crying.”

That, we think, is what Elder Paisios was driving at. Byzantine chant supports the classical spiritual sobriety that is taught in the Orthodox Philokalic tradition. Russian Westernized chant—and this by extension would include Western religious music—works more on the emotions, creating effects on the sentiments, so that the person is sentimentally moved to religious emotions. This is better than demonic emotions, certainly, but it is not the same as the spiritual sobriety of the Philokalic tradition. This is very difficult for a Westerner to comprehend, we know, because Westerners have been taught all their life that the only possibility is for religious emotion. There’s no provision in their Western upbringing and education for the Philokalic spiritual sobriety that is compatible with Byzantine chant and which is supported by Byzantine chant.

What is behind all of this is the notion that music has an effect on the person hearing it. It can agitate, calm, make sad, make happy—or even support Byzantine Orthodox spiritual life.

But the Russians are no slouches when it comes to philokalic spirituality. After all, Way of the Pilgrim, that famous introduction to the Philokalia, was found in a manuscript at St Panteleimon’s Monastery on Athos. Moreover, St Panteleimon’s Monastery is where St Silouan lived, also Staretz Sophrony. Certainly, in Russia proper St Seraphim of Sarov was a practitioner of the Jesus Prayer who no one would want to suggest was a second-class saint. The 19^th- and early-20^th-Century saints of Optina are renowned for their command of philokalic spirituality. So while Russian liturgical music may be a bit more sentimental than Byzantine liturgical music, that doesn’t mean you can’t become a saint in either tradition. There is ample evidence to the contrary.

We can see the same distinction between the sober and the sentimental in Byzantine and Western religious art. The two arts were pretty much the same until a certain period, when Western religious art began to diverge from the received iconographical tradition.  This is not prejudice on our part; any art historian can explain that up to a point the two traditions were the same and that after about the 11^th Century Byzantine iconography remained much closer to that common tradition than Western religious art.

Here is the 6^th Century Church of San Vitale, Ravenna, Italy, the apse:

 
The acme of Western religious art in its divergence from the common tradition is probably the High Renaissance, in the works of Michelangelo. This is already a sentimental art but at least it’s well done.

 Here is Michelangelo's Risen Christ (Christ Carrying the Cross, 16^th Century):

The naturalism of Michelangelo is quite evident in this sculpture; the point that Elder Paisios was making, we think, is that such a naturalistic art remains on a human plane affecting only the human emotions whereas Byzantine art raises the mind to the spiritual.
 
For reference here is Christ, detail from the 13^th Century Deesis Mosaic in St Sophia:

We would have preferred to stay in a single medium (painting or mosaic) but it's not easy to find images for upload on short notice, hence the use of a sculpture by Michelangelo rather than a painting.

To make the point clearer, here is the Madonna and Child by Raphael (16^th Century):

For reference, here is the 12^th Century Our Lady of Vladimir icon, painted in Constantinople:

No one doubts Raphael's ability but his art is quite naturalistic and as such it works on the emotions.  It would be useful for the viewer to obtain a good copy of the Our Lady of Vladimir icon to study the facial expression on the Theotokos; this icon is an example of the icon as door to the spiritual, something that is completely missing in Raphael's painting.

After that it’s downhill.

Of course Byzantine iconography has had its vicissitudes; who doesn’t love the sentimental, Westernized kitsch of the 20^th Century?

And Russian iconography is not all Rublev’s Trinity:

But classical Byzantine iconography has always maintained an ideal of the spiritually sober.

Let us now look at the issue from the point of view of Alice’s conversion to Orthodoxy. Alice is somewhere: she’s of a certain age, of a certain cultural, familial and ecclesiastical background. She has grown interested in Orthodoxy. She has a number of options open to her if she decides to join the Orthodox Church. She could join a Russian jurisdiction or she could join a more Greek-Byzantine jurisdiction. Wherever she goes she will find that she is on earth, not yet in Heaven—that there are problems. But that aside, from the point of view of music she could certainly join a jurisdiction that used a more Westernized liturgical music, something more similar to what she herself deals with in her profession. Given her training, she might like that Westernized liturgical music or she might hate it—she will obviously have a highly developed taste and that taste might agree with the music of the jurisdiction or it might disagree with it violently. It’s something she will have to consider.

But that is not the crux of the problem: Alice is not joining a musical club; she’s working on her salvation. She should be joining the Orthodox Church, if she joins, because she thinks that it brings her salvation and knowledge of the One True God. So what if the music is or is not a little kitschy (if it is)?

What we think happens is this. Alice joins the Orthodox Church and commences an Orthodox spiritual life. We strongly recommend reception by Baptism. That is a complete transformation to make a new creation. After Baptism, Alice doesn’t realize how transformed she is; others begin to see the difference but Alice doesn’t until after a year or so. However, be that as it may Alice continues her profession. The same scales every day for 2 hours; the same studies for 3 hours; the same concert pieces for 5 hours. The same routine at the orchestra, the same students for lessons. Nothing’s changed. Alice has a stereo set and plays classical music and also experiments with listening to the liturgical music of her new religious environment. Maybe Alice joins the Church choir—even though Alice is a classical musician that doesn’t mean she has the ability, time or inclination to sing in the choir; it’s not obligatory in any case.

In any event, Alice’s musical taste slowly starts to change. Why? Because Alice has slowly started to change. If she weren’t going to change, and didn’t want to change, why would she join a new religion?

So Alice changes as a person. She matures—spiritually, psychologically and so on. Why wouldn’t her taste in clothes, furniture and everything else also change? Including her taste in music, where she has a highly developed artistic sensibility? She starts to hear pieces that she liked as being of poor quality. She starts to hear pieces that she didn’t care for with new ears, seeing a new depth that she hadn’t realized was there. But some things that Alice liked she still likes, and some things she hated she still hates. Alice is alive. She’s still Alice from Manhattan.

Let us suppose that Alice plays 1^st Violin at the New York Philharmonic. She goes to rehearsals; she plays the 1^st Violin part of whatever has been selected, doing the best she can; in concerts she performs in her black dress doing the best she can. And as Alice grows after becoming Orthodox so does her appreciation of the music she is playing professionally.

Will Alice become a better musician once she becomes Orthodox? If Alice makes a serious effort at repentance and prayer and spiritual growth she will become a better person. Surely being a better person would make Alice better at whatever she set her hand to, including her profession. It is conceivable, indeed, that God might grant a spiritual charism to assist Alice musically but this is something that God knows, not Alice, before she becomes Orthodox. And what is important is that Alice became Orthodox to grow spiritually, not to improve her professional competence in an orchestra.

Now someone asks Alice to play violin in a local rock band. Alice, who’s Orthodox now, devoutly attending church and receiving communion, graciously declines, saying she has no time.

Next, someone asks Alice to be the conductor of a church choir in a non-Orthodox church (let’s suppose she has the ability). Does Alice accept? We wouldn’t, but this is something for Alice to discuss with her confessor.

What happens if the New York Philharmonic starts playing many, many pieces by composers known to be non-Orthodox, non-Christian, anti-Orthodox and anti-Christian? This gets complicated and Alice needs to consider her priorities.

Finally, we would recommend that Alice, if she has the time, begin a study of Byzantine music, its scales, notation, performance, compositions, history. This is not obligatory and Alice might not even like Byzantine chant. But it seems obvious that this will be a big part of Alice’s new religion and that Alice would want to learn something about it at a level consistent with her training. One thing we do know is that the Byzantine scales do not have the same intervals as Western scales and it is very difficult for a Western-trained singer to ‘convert’ to Byzantine chant, and vice versa. This is a matter of human physiology. The organs of voice production have been trained in one way; the other type of music requires a completely different training of the voice-production organs, making it impossible to switch from the one music to the other. We imagine the same is true for an instrumental musician in terms of how the ear hears the scales. Assuming Alice plays the violin, it wouldn’t be that easy for Alice to convert to playing Byzantine scales on the violin, although we are sure that she could demonstrate Byzantine scales on a one-off basis.

We hope that helps, Alice.

Diadochos of Photiki

Update March 1, 2012: Please see this post

We hope to publish over the next short while the complete text of our translation of the Gnostic Chapters of St Diadochos, Bishop of Photiki in Epirus. Not much is known about this 5^th Century prelate. His see was located somewhat north of present-day Preveza in Greece. His work is included in the first volume of the Philokalia and was one of the works that St Symeon the New Theologian was given to read when he was a novice. It is the first recorded work to speak explicitly of the Jesus Prayer.

Some Epithets of Mary

There are a number of epithets used of Mary in the Orthodox Church. We would like to look at a number of them.

The first epithet is Panaghia. This epithet means All-Holy, All-Holy One, All-Holy Woman.

The next epithet is Theotokos. This is a difficult word to translate. It literally means she (or, her) who gave birth to God. Theotokos is a very important word theologically, playing a role as it does in the defense of Orthodoxy against the Nestorians, who denied the fullness of the incarnation. Hence, it would be useful to interpret the term correctly when we are translating the services of the Church. We do not think that merely leaving the word in the Greek does justice to what is involved: the untranslated word becomes a sort of proper name, devoid of meaning and content except for a professional theologian.

The sense of Theotokos as it was debated in the Nestorian controversy is that because the person that Mary bore was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, he who had taken up human flesh from Mary in taking up a full human nature, Mary is justly to be called she who gave birth to God. It does not have the sense, as some New-Age types would like to think, that Mary is some sort of eternal matrix or ground of being that somehow brought forth the Godhead. The Nestorian position itself is that Mary gave birth to a mere man who was united to the Godhead. This would have made Jesus a man of vastly superior attainments to other men, but still a mere man. This position is actually quite popular in popular modern Western conceptions of Jesus

The next epithet is Mother of God. From the above, this should be clear.

The next epithet is Ever-Virgin. This should also be clear. In contrast with some Protestants, but in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church (or should we say that the Roman Catholic Church maintains the Orthodox tradition?), this means that the Virgin Mary never knew man, even after Jesus’ birth. The Fathers interpret the references in the Gospel to Jesus’ ‘brothers and sisters’ to refer to children that Joseph, a widower, had by a previous marriage.

The next epithet is Unwedded Bride. This is a difficult epithet to translate into English without creating unnecessary connotations. The sense of course is that Mary became the Bride of God—she gave birth to the Son of God—without for all that ever having known man.