Synodal Russian Translation of the “Confession of Faith” by Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem and Its Influence on the Third Redaction of the “Longer Catechism” of 1839: Censorship by Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) on the Issue of the After-Life

Article in russian

Bellow text was translated using A.I. translator

* * *

Synodal Russian Translation of the “Confession of Faith” by Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem and Its Influence on the Third Redaction of the “Longer Catechism” of 1839: Censorship by Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) on the Issue of the After-Life 

© 2025 Mikhail M. Bernatsky 

Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Research Fellow at the St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, 6-1 Likhov Lane, Moscow, 127051, Russia, Associate Professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 21-4 Staraya Basmannaya Str., Moscow, 105066, Russia ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3824-433X mbernatski@gmail.com 

© 2025 Natalia A. Mamlina 

Master of Theology, Independent Researcher, 42-1 Narodnogo Opolchenia Str., Moscow, 123298, Russia ORCID ID: 0009-0006-6259-4037 mamlina1988@gmail.com

I. Two Versions of the Confession of the Orthodox Faith by Patriarch Dositheus

The Homologia orthodoxou pisteōs (Confession of the Orthodox Faith) – the main work of Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus II (1641–1707) [1, p. 734–773]; [2]; [3] – was composed with the aim of refuting the Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith, attributed to Patriarch Cyril I Lucaris [4]; [5]. Lucaris's Eastern Confession, consisting of 18 chapters, was first published in Geneva in Latin in 1629. A translation into Greek appeared in 1631 and was printed in parallel with the Latin text. This same edition was reprinted in 1633. Unlike the first edition, the second and third contained references to Holy Scripture, as well as four question-and-answer sections placed at the end¹. In his work, Dositheus strictly followed this structure of the Eastern Confession (18 chapters and 4 Q&A sections), sequentially refuting the Calvinist doctrine contained within it.

The text of Dositheus's Confession forms part of the sixth section of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672². The reason for convening the Council was the theological polemic in France between Catholics and Protestants, as well as the activities of the French ambassador to Constantinople, Charles François Olier, Marquis de Nointel [7, p. 267–270], who, striving to obtain authoritative statements from Orthodox hierarchs and synods in support of Catholic theologians, personally appealed to the hierarchs, visited Greek monasteries and churches, and dispatched Catholic monks with a program of questions (on the Council, see: [8]; [9]).

There exist two versions of the Confession:

1. The First Version of 1672, first published with a Latin translation as part of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem in Paris in 1676 [10, p. 336–337, No. 536] and republished with corrections in 1678. In particular, the title on the frontispiece was corrected from "Synodus Bethlehemitica" to "Synodus Jerosolymitana."

2. The Second Version, corrected and expanded, was published as an authorial work by Dositheus in Bucharest in 1690 [11], also together with the acts of the Council of Jerusalem under the title Encheiridion kata tēs kalvinikēs phrenoblabeias ("A Sword against Calvinist Insanity")³. The 1690 edition appeared in the context of the polemic concerning the term "transubstantiation," which concluded with the Council of Constantinople in 1691, whose tomos bears the signature of Dositheus.

In 1723, the first version of Dositheus's Confession played an important role in negotiations between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Anglicans. As part of the "Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church concerning the Orthodox Faith"⁴, the text was sent to Russia for forwarding to Great Britain through the Most Holy Synod of the Russian Church: Peter I and the Most Holy Synod of the Russian Church, at the request of the Anglicans, assisted them in negotiations with the Eastern Patriarchs.

The text of the "Confession of Faith" that was sent appears to have been copied from manuscript BNF. Suppl. gr. 173 [16, p. 23]. This is a copy of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, the Council of Constantinople of 1672, and the Council of Constantinople of 1691, commissioned by Chrysanthos. At the end of the manuscript, we find the signatures of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople; Cyril IV, former Patriarch of Constantinople; Samuel, Patriarch of Alexandria; Archbishop Joasaph II of Ohrid; and Chrysanthos, Patriarch of Jerusalem. With their signatures, they confirmed the copy's complete conformity with the original manuscripts (τῶν πρωτοτύπων, BNF. Suppl. gr. 173, fol. 43v–44v).

The Epistle was intended for Anglican bishops, the so-called non-jurors, who in 1690 refused to swear an oath to King William III of Orange (1689–1702)⁵, forming a separate congregation and seeking union with the Orthodox. The Confession was sent to the "non-jurors" as an authoritative document containing the true exposition of Orthodox doctrine; the Patriarchs (Jerusalem's Chrysanthos⁶, Constantinople's Jeremiah III, and Antioch's Athanasius III) made their agreement with this document a necessary condition for achieving unity with the Anglican bishops. To the Russian Church, the Eastern Patriarchs, headed by Chrysanthos, advised showing like-mindedness and solidarity with the "Epistle," so as not to have any other contacts with Protestants concerning the content of the Orthodox faith. In other words, they called for the official reception of the first edition of Dositheus's Confession of Faith.

In a number of issues, the first and second versions of the text of the Confession of Faith [9] differ from each other – including a significant reworking of Chapter 18, dedicated to the posthumous fate of people. Let us also note an important fact – in 1691, the Bucharest edition, which also included a work against Lucaris by the Greek theologian Meletius Sirigos (1585/6–1664), was sent by Dositheus to the Moscow Patriarch Adrian (1690–1700) with a request for translation into Slavic and publication. The translation, carried out with the blessing of the patriarch by students of the Likhud brothers, was not published and survives with corrections by Euthymius of Chudov in manuscript GIM. Sin. 158 [17, p. 493–495]. It is likely that Alexey Kirillovich Barsov, a student of the Likhud brothers (see about him: [18]), also participated in the translation of the 1690 edition. In manuscript GIM. Sin. 158, on folios 85–143, 324–339, we find the initial letters of the translator's name – 'A. K.'

II. Overview of Russian Translations and Publications of the Text of Patriarch Dositheus's Confession

In 1728, by order of the Holy Synod, the same Alexey Kirillovich Barsov made a new translation into Russian of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 and the first version of Dositheus's Confession of Faith, based on the Paris edition of 1678. The translation was not printed and is preserved in manuscript RNB. Q. I. 238 [19, p. 287–288]. This translation requires further study; however, it is important to note that it was made not from a copy of the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs." Why Barsov's translation was not published typographically can likely be explained by the struggle between Feofan (Prokopovich) and his opponents, which unfolded after the death of Peter I, a victim of which was Alexey Barsov himself, arrested in 1732 by the Secret Chancellery and who died during the investigation in 1736.

In the course of working on this article, we were able to ascertain that another attempt at translating the acts of the Council of 1672 and the Confession was undertaken in the 18th century. The Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library holds a manuscript under the call number RGB.F.200.6, dated by its colophon to 1796⁷. It contains a copy of a translation of the acts and the Confession of Faith, completed in 1749 by the hieromonk Iakov (Blonitsky)⁸ by decree of the Holy Synod. The translation was made, as in Barsov's case, from the Paris edition of 1678.

Almost a hundred years later, in 1838, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, a new translation of the first version of the Confession of Faith (the so-called Synodal translation [22]) was published, carried out by Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov). Count Nikolay Alexandrovich Protasov (1836–1855), upon whom the duties of Synodal Ober-Prosecutor and member of the Commission for Ecclesiastical Schools were placed in 1836, found the Patriarchal charters concerning the establishment of the Holy Synod in Russia, which included Dositheus's Confession of Faith as part of the "Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith" [23, p. 327]. Currently, these charters are stored in the Russian State Historical Archive: RGIA. F. 796. Op. 205. D. 6.

Protasov accused Feofan (Prokopovich) of initiating a Protestant trend in the Russian Church of the 18th century, which, in his opinion, included attempts to translate Holy Scripture into the Russian vernacular [24, p. 436–438]. Therefore, his turn to anti-Protestant confessions of faith from the 17th century became one of the elements in the struggle against this trend. The Ober-Procurator commissioned the translation of the charters and the "Epistle" to Metropolitan Filaret, who, in turn, perceived Latin influence in the Confession of Faith and, in translating, deviated from the original in a number of places, subjecting the Russian translation to censorial editing. Archpriest Alexander Gorsky (1812–1875) recorded the following recollection of Metropolitan Filaret concerning the subject of our interest: "Count Protasov found these charters in the Synod, together with the charter on the confirmation of the Holy Synod. I did not know that they were there. Publishing the latter seemed good to me, as it gives legality to our church government and shows that even Peter, who was distinguished by his love for reforms, found it necessary to turn to church authority for confirmation of this reform. In the former, however, I found the influence of Latin teaching. A strange thing. Even the sacrament of Chrismation is named there from the Latin: βεβαίωσις [cf. Latin confirmatio. – M.B., N.M.]. The task of translating and correcting was entrusted to me. I read the corrected version to the members of the Holy Synod. All were in agreement: only, I don't know why, Bishop Jonah⁹ said it would be better not to print it. In doing so, I omitted one of the answers to the questions about Holy Scripture, placed at the end after the charter" [25, p. 23].

From the text of the recollection in Gorsky's record, it is unclear who sanctioned not only the translation of Dositheus's Confession of Faith but also the correction of questionable passages, i.e., the censorial edits: "The task of translating and correcting was entrusted to me." Entrusted by whom: the Synod or the Ober-Procurator personally? In the end, the text of the translation with censorial corrections was approved by the Synod. We currently lack other sources confirming Metropolitan Filaret's testimony, for example, documents from the archive of the Holy Synod. The question arises: was Ober-Procurator Protasov aware of the corrections? Also unclear is the remark of Metropolitan Jonah (Vasilevsky) – "it would be better not to print it" – because the Confession of Faith is of questionable dogmatic character even with Metropolitan Filaret's corrections, or because subjecting a text approved by the Eastern Patriarchs to censorship and printing it seemed too audacious to Metropolitan Jonah? (Cf.: [23, p. 327].) We find a very brief and not very clear testimony from Filaret himself about his work on translating the Confession in his letters to Andrey Muravyov (1806–1874) dated March 15 and 22, 1837: "Here are all the charters for you, and the general title, and the preface, and the individual titles. It seems that in this way the matter will have a proper and not at all wild appearance" [26, p. 45]. Here is how Muravyov, the addressee and publisher of the letters, comments on these lines: "This relates to the correspondence that took place in the days of Peter the Great between the Russian Synod and the Eastern Patriarchs regarding the letter of the British bishops about the union of the Churches. They were published with a translation in a separate booklet" [26, p. 44–45]. Following the Russian translation, in 1840 in St. Petersburg, an edition consisting solely of the Greek texts of the charters on the establishment of the Holy Synod and the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs" was printed. This publication included the Greek text of Dositheus's Confession of Faith [27], which also contained a number of corrections and omissions, the nature of which suggests that Filaret himself worked on this publication.

In 1875, in the third volume of the "Complete Collection of Decrees and Orders for the Department of the Orthodox Confession of the Russian Empire" under number 1115 [28], a new edition of the Greek text of the Confession of Faith appeared. As we read in the preface¹⁰, the Greek text was "collated with the authentic documents," i.e., checked against the "original," which we understand to mean the manuscript of the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs" from RGIA. F. 796. Op. 205. D. 6. The collated text was placed parallel to Filaret's "Synodal translation." Thus, Filaret's Russian translation was not subjected to revision.

Finally, at the beginning of the 20th century, another Russian translation of the Confession of Faith appeared, made by an unknown translator. The new translation claimed greater accuracy in following the Greek text of the 1875 edition and was published parallel to it in the theological-apologetic journal Vera i Tserkov (Faith and Church) in 1907 [30].

In the present article, our attention will focus on the following texts of the first version of Patriarch Dositheus's Confession of Faith:

1. The Russian "Synodal Translation" according to the 1838 edition.

2. The Greek text with censorial corrections according to the 1840 edition.

3. The Greek text according to the 1875 edition.

The theological impediments that Metropolitan Filaret encountered in his work with Dositheus's text and their reflection in the texts of the corresponding editions will be demonstrated by us using a specific example—we will examine the 18th oros (definition/decree) of the Confession, dedicated to the state of the souls of the deceased before the general resurrection. But first, let us say a few words about Metropolitan Filaret's activity in the field of translating the New Testament and creating the Catechism in the 1810s–1830s, within the context of which his work on the Confession proceeded.

III. The Three Editions of the Catechism Compiled by Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov)

From 1812 to 1819, Archimandrite (from 1817 – Bishop, from 1819 – Archbishop) Filaret, an expert in ancient languages, a splendid stylist, already known at that time for his sermons, held the position of rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy; from 1812 to 1826, he actively participated in the work of the Russian Bible Society. In 1822, Archbishop Filaret compiled, by order of the Holy Synod, a Christian Catechism¹¹, work on which was inextricably linked with the project of translating Holy Scripture into Russian within the framework of the activities of the Russian Bible Society from 1812 to 1826. The Filaretian Catechism first saw light in 1823; in the same year, the complete Russian translation of the New Testament was published without the Church Slavonic text, as had been the case in the 1818–1821 editions, in accordance with the imperial decree of 1816 [31, p. 25–33]. Most of the propositions of the Catechism were confirmed by quotations from the New Testament in Russian. However, already in 1824, when the post of Minister of Public Education was taken by Admiral A.S. Shishkov, who did not accept, in his own words, "the rendering of the Holy Scriptures from the lofty and important language into the common vernacular" [32, p. 47], the Catechism came under a ban: its printing was suspended by a Synodal decree of November 26, 1824; already printed copies were withdrawn from sale. The next two editions of the Extended Christian Catechism saw light in 1827 and 1839¹². The main edit in the 1827 edition was the replacement of quotations from Holy Scripture in Russian translation with the same quotations in Slavonic translation. The edit of 1839, initiated by the aforementioned Ober-Procurator Count Protasov, was of a dogmatic character: a whole series of question-and-answer sections were added, and the Introduction was significantly revised, in which the section "On Natural Knowledge of God" was removed and, in contrast to the first edition, emphasis was placed on Holy Tradition, not exclusively on Holy Scripture. Among the sources of insertions in the text of the 1839 Catechism, the Confession of Faith of Patriarch Dositheus holds a noticeable place, which, by order of Count Protasov, Metropolitan Filaret translated from Greek into Russian, as we discussed above.

Let us turn to these corrections, which concerned the 18th oros of the Confession of Faith.

IV. Comparison of the Greek Text of the 18th Oros of the Confession in the 1875 Edition and the "Synodal Translation" of 1838

Let us note an important point for studying the textology and substantive analysis of the monuments of interest to us: Dositheus, refuting the text of the Eastern Confession, not only preserves its structure but also follows it lexically, remaining in the same terminological field and proposing new dogmatic formulations to replace the Calvinist ones. The explanation for this is obvious: the Eastern Confession was already being used in the confessional polemics of 17th-century Western Europe, and Dositheus's new Confession was intended to replace it as a true testimony from the Eastern Church. Thus, Dositheus in no way claims to provide an absolute dogmatic exposition of Orthodox doctrine; his Confession of Faith must be considered exclusively in the context of the polemic against crypto-Calvinism, as presented in Lucaris's text.

In the 18th oros of Lucaris's Eastern Confession, directed against the Latin teaching on purgatory, it is stated that the final decision regarding the souls of the departed occurs "immediately" (παραυτίκα) after death. Accordingly, in the 18th oros of the first version of Dositheus's Confession of Faith, he refutes this Protestant judgment. We are not addressing here the problem of Dositheus's sources for writing this oros. This problem has not been systematically researched for the monument as a whole. Let us only note that Dositheus emphasizes "mortal" sins for which a person has repented but did not manage to bring forth their fruits. In doing so, he partly distances himself from the concept of purgatory in the Roman Church, which requires the cleansing of souls that have committed both venial and mortal sins but have satisfied God's justice through works of repentance¹³.

Metropolitan Filaret, perceiving in this chapter of the Confession the influence of Latin teaching on repentance and purgatory, subjected the text in his translation to censorship. Let us examine step by step the original Greek text according to the 1875 edition and the Synodal translation of the 18th oros. The first paragraph of the text Filaret translated as closely as possible to the original:

Текст по изданию 1875 г. Синодальный перевод Филарета Πισ τε ύοµ ε ν τὰ ς τῶν κεκοιµηµένων ψυχὰς εἶναι ἢ ἐν ἀνέσει ἢ ἐν ὀδύνῃ, καθ᾿ ὅ τι ἕκαστος ἔπραξεν. Χωριζοµένας γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν σωµάτων, παραυτίκα ἢ πρ ὸ ς ε ὐ φρ ο σ ύ ν ην, ἢ π ρ ὸ ς λ ύ π η ν κ α ὶ σ τ ε ν α γ µ ὸ ν ἐ κ δ ηµ εῖν, ὁµολογουµένης µέντοι µήτε τῆς ἀπολαύσεως µήτε τῆς κατακρίσεως τελείας. Μετὰ γὰρ τὴν κοινὴν ἀνάστασιν, ὅτε ἡ ψ υ χ ὴ ἑ ν ω θ είη τῷ σώµατι, µεθ’ οὗ καλῶς ἢ πονηρῶς ἐπολιτεύσατο, ἀ π ολήψ ε ται ἕ κ α σ το ς τ ὸ τ έ λ ε ι ο ν, ἢ τ ῆ ς ἀ π ολ α ύ σ ε ω ς, ἢ τ ῆ ς κατακρίσεως δηλονότι. Веруем, что души умерших блаженствуют или мучатся, смотря по делам своим. Разлучившись с телами, оне тотчас переходят или к радости, или к печали и скорби; впрочем не чувствуют ни совершеннаго блаженства, ни совершеннаго мучения. Ибо совершенное блаженство или совершенное мучение каждый получит, по общем воскресении, когда душа соединится с телом, в котором жила добродетельно или порочно.

As we can see, Dositheus also uses the word παραυτίκα, but unlike Lucaris, he adds that both the blessedness and the torment to which souls pass immediately are not perfect until the general resurrection. Next, we encounter the first correction that the translator introduces into the text of the 18th oros:

Текст по изданию 1875 г. Синодальный перевод Филарета Τοὺς δὲ συµφθαρέντας θανασίµοις πληµµελήµασι, καὶ µὴ ἐν ἀπογνώσει ἀποδηµήσαντας, ἀλλὰ µ ε τ α ν ο ή σ α ν τ α ς µ ὲ ν ἔτι π εριόν τας ἐν τῷ µετὰ σώµατος βίῳ, µὴ π ο ιήσ α ν τ α ς δ ὲ ο ὐ δ᾿ ὁ ν τ ι ν α ο ῦ ν κ α ρ π ὸ ν µετανοίας Души людей, впадших в смертные грехи и при смерти не отчаявшихся, но еще до разлучения с настоящею жизнию покаявшихся, только не успевших принести никаких плодов покаяния

Filaret translates the word συμφθαρέντᾰς as "впадших" (those who have fallen/lapsed). However, this Greek aorist passive participle is derived from the verb συμφθείρω, which in the passive voice means "to perish," "to be destroyed," and should be translated as "погубленных" (those who have perished/been destroyed).

Further in the text of the "Confession of Faith," Dositheus specifies in brackets what constitutes the "fruits of repentance":

Текст по изданию 1875 г. Синодальный перевод Филарета (ἐκχέαι, δάκρυα δηλονότι, κ α ὶ γ ο ν υ π ε τ ῆσ α ι ἐ ν γρηγορήσει προσευχῶν, θ λ ι β ῆ ν α ι , π τ ω χ ο ὺ ς παραµυθῆσαι, καὶ τέως ἐν ἔργοις τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν πλησίον ἀγάπην ἐπιδεῖξαι, ἃ καὶ ἱκανοποίησιν καλῶς ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὠνόµασε14) (каковы: молитвы, слезы, коленопреклонения при молитвенных бдениях, сокрушения, утешение бедных и выражение в по ступках любви к Бо гу и ближним, – что все Кафолическая Церковь с самаго начала при знает Богоугодным и благо потребным)

We see that14 Filaret, when listing the fruits of repentance, adds the word "молитвы" (prayers), thereby emphasizing the personal prayers of the penitent, not only silent kneeling during church services. Also, in the fragment above, the translator does not call the fruits of repentance "удовлетворением" (satisfaction; from Greek ἱκανοποίησιν; cf. Latin satisfactio), but says that the Church recognizes them as God-pleasing and beneficial, thereby avoiding the Latin term that expresses one of the components (along with contritio and confessio) of the Catholic teaching on repentance and purgatory15.

Текст по изданию 1875 г. Синодальный перевод Филарета τούτων καὶ αὐτῶν τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς ᾅδην, καὶ ὑποµένειν τὴν ἕνεκα ὧν εἰργάσαντο ἁµαρτηµάτων ποινήν· εἶναι δ᾿ ἐν συναισθήσει τῆς ἐκῆθεν ἀπαλλαγῆς. Ἐλευθεροῦσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς ἄκρας ἀγαθότητος, διὰ τ ῆς δεήσεως τῶν ἱερέων καὶ εὐποιϊῶν, ἃ τῶν ἀποιχοµένων ἕνεκα οἱ ἑκάστου συγγενεῖς ἀ π ο τ ε λ ο ῦ σ ι· µ ε γ ά λ α δυναµένης µάλιστα τῆς ἀ ν α ι µ ά κ τ ο υ Θ υ σ ί α ς, ἣ ν ἰ δί ω ς ὑ π ὲρ τ ῶ ν κεκοιµηµένων συγγενῶν ἕκαστος, καὶ κοινῶς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἡ Καθολικὴ καὶ Ἀποστολικὴ ὁσηµέραι π ο ι ε ῖ Ἐ κ κ λ η σ ί α . Ἐννοουµένου µέντοι καὶ τούτου, τοῦ µὴ εἰδέναι ἡµᾶς δηλαδὴ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἀπαλλαγῆς· ὅτι γὰρ γίνεται ἐλευθερία τῶν τοιούτων ἀπὸ τῶν δεινῶν, καὶ πρὸ τῆς κοινῆς ἀναστάσεώς τε καὶ κρίσεως, οἴδαµεν καὶ πιστεύοµεν, πότε δὲ, ἀγνοοῦµεν16 . души таких людей нисходят во ад и терпят за учи ненные ими грехи наказания, не лишаясь впрочем надежды облегчения от них. Облегчение же получают оне, по безконеч ной благости, чрез молитвы Священников и благотворения, совершаемыя за умерших, а особенно силою безкровной Жертвы, которую в частности приносит Священнослужитель для каждаго Христианина о его присных, вообще же за всех повседневно приносит Кафолическая и Апостольская Церковь.

Only the noun ποινή (a calque from the Latin poena) retains in the translation the meaning of "punishment" (наказания); however, lacking its pairing with "satisfaction," it loses its dogmatic Latin coloration. The noun ἀπαλλαγή and the verb ἐλευθερόω, used in relation to the souls of repentant people who did not have time during their earthly life to bring forth any fruits of repentance, are translated not as "deliverance" and "to set free," but as "alleviation" (облегчение) and "to receive alleviation" (получать облегчение). The final fragment of the text of the 18th oros, concerning the liberation of the aforementioned souls before the Last Judgment and containing the same vocabulary – ἀπαλλαγή and ἐλευθερία – Filaret omits entirely.

V. Comparison of the Greek Text of the 18th Oros of the Confession in the 1840 and 1875 Editions

In the separate publication of the Greek text from 1840, the publishers (whom we believe to be Filaret himself) made only one cut in the 18th oros – they removed the definition of the fruits of repentance that directly refers, as we said, to the Scholastic theory of repentance and its terminology (satisfactio = ἱκανοποίησις): ἃ καὶ ἱκανοποίησιν καλῶς ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὠνόµασε. The removed text can be translated as follows: "which the Catholic Church has rightly called satisfaction from the beginning"¹⁷. It remains a mystery why the final fragment of the 18th oros, omitted in the Synodal translation, was not left out in the 1840 edition. We will only be able to say whether this happened for "technical reasons" or not if we gain access to the proof copies of the Confession, if they have been preserved, of course.

I. Karmiris, in his critical edition of the two versions of Dositheus's Confession, states that he takes the 1840 publication into account in the critical apparatus; however, the textual variant we indicated, along with a number of others, is not noted there [1, p. 764], which calls for cautious treatment of the variants in the apparatus. Variants compared to the 1840 edition are presented more thoroughly in the publication "The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith," contained in volume 37 of Mansi's collection [14, pp. 541–580].

VI. Insertion of New Question-and-Answer Sections into the Interpretation of the 11th Article of the Creed in the 1839 Catechism

In the same years when Metropolitan Filaret was working on the translation (1838) and publication of the Greek text (1840) of Dositheus's Confession of Faith, he was once again editing the Catechism (1839) and introducing a number of significant changes compared to the 1823 and 1827 editions. Whether all of them were initiated by Count Protasov or some were made on Metropolitan Filaret's own initiative is a separate question, which, due to a lack of sources, leaves room for numerous speculations.

In 1839, in the interpretation of the 11th article of the Creed ("I look for the resurrection of the dead"), a substantial insertion consisting of six question-and-answer sections was made [33, p. 87]. The source of this insertion in the text is not explicitly indicated, but we believe it is Dositheus's Confession, as we will show below. All new questions are dedicated to the same issue of the state of the souls of the deceased before the Second Coming, which is also the subject of the 18th oros of the Confession: "1. In what state are the souls of the dead until the general resurrection? 2. Why are the souls of the righteous not ascribed complete blessedness immediately after death? 3. Why is a preliminary blessedness prescribed for them before the final judgment? 4. Is this preliminary blessedness connected with the vision of Jesus Christ Himself? 5. What should be noted about the souls of those who died in faith but did not have time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance? 6. On what is this teaching based?" The content of the answer to the first question completely corresponds to Dositheus's Confession of Faith: "The souls of the righteous [are] in light, rest, and the preliminary state of eternal blessedness; while the souls of sinners are in a state opposite to this" [33, p. 87]. In the answers to the second, third, and fourth questions, Filaret also follows the Confession, conveying the idea that complete retribution a person should receive only after the General Resurrection, i.e., when the soul and body of each deceased person are reunited. But unlike Dositheus, Filaret—not constrained by the framework of a brief dogmatic definition—in the Catechism adds New Testament quotations to each of these answers to illustrate his words: 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Lk. 16:22; Phil. 1:23. The fifth question concerns the souls of those people who repented during their earthly life but did not have time to bring forth fruits of repentance. Here, unlike Dositheus, Filaret does not specify whether these people fell into "mortal" sins or not, but simply says that they died in faith. That is, Filaret uses the text of the Confession but softens it even more than he did when translating this same point, thereby moving away from the division into "mortal" and "venial" sins characteristic of the Latin tradition. If we compare the fragments about offering the bloodless sacrifice for such deceased in Dositheus's Confession of Faith and in Filaret's 1839 Catechism, we will see that Filaret in this Q&A of the Catechism not only avoided Latin terminology but also removed the clerical context, not contrasting "prayers of priests" and "acts of charity by relatives," the private bloodless Sacrifice (ἰδίως ὑπὲρ τῶν κεκοιμημένων συγγενῶν ἕκαστος) and the general one (κοινῶς ὑπὲρ πάντων) offered on behalf of the Church. In the Catechism, the subject performing the prayers and acts of charity is not specified at all, only the special power of prayer combined with the Eucharistic sacrifice is emphasized: "...prayers offered for them, especially those combined with the offering of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, and acts of charity performed in faith in their memory, can assist them in attaining the blessed resurrection" [33, p. 87].

The Greek text in the corresponding passage of the Confession presents a problem if translated literally, as it turns out that the sacrifice is offered privately for one's relatives by each (ἕκαστος) Christian. Therefore, both Filaret's translation and the 1907 translation propose a non-literal rendering, making the "clergyman" either the subject or the instrument¹⁸. We believe the ambiguity of the Greek text in this case is due to Dositheus's Latin source, which might have been referring to memorial Masses with an intention for a specific person.

Furthermore, unlike the Confession, Filaret's Catechism does not explicitly state that the souls of these people "descend into hell." However, the conclusion that, according to the Catechism, the souls of those who did not bear fruits of repentance are in hell until the General Resurrection can be drawn from the answer to the sixth question. In this answer, Filaret emphasizes biblical and patristic testimonies, referencing sources well-known in the Greco-Latin polemic on the question of purgatory at the Council of Ferrara-Florence [36]; [37]¹⁹ and in later treatises²⁰:

Church Tradition, "whose beginnings are visible even in the Old Testament Church. Judas Maccabeus offered a sacrifice for the dead soldiers (2 Macc. 12:43)" [33, p. 87].

The Liturgy of the Apostle James and liturgies composed later, which always contain prayers for the departed.

The Mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem.

The prayers at Vespers on the Feast of Pentecost, attributed to Basil the Great, in which he "says that the Lord deigns to accept from us prayers of propitiation and sacrifices 'for those held in hell,' with hope for them of 'peace, alleviation, and freedom'" [33, p. 87].

A comparison of the 18th oros of Dositheus's Confession (the original text of the first version and the Synodal translation carried out by St. Filaret) with the insertion made into the interpretation of the 11th article of the Creed in the third edition of the 1839 Catechism clearly shows that Filaret in this case used Dositheus's text as a source but did not follow it blindly, rather polemicizing with it. In the translation itself, i.e., "on Dositheus's field," this polemic was reflected in Filaret's censorial editing, while in the Catechism it was continued with much greater freedom "on his own field" and was clearly significant for the compiler of the Catechism himself. However, the very fact of the appearance of these question-and-answer sections was undoubtedly initiated by the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov.

VII. Conclusion

The vicissitudes of the text of the first version of the Confession of Faith by Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus in 18th–19th century Russia are undoubtedly of interest. Extracted from the context of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 by Dositheus's successor, Patriarch Chrysanthos, the Greek text, as part of the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs" of 1723, arrived in Russia and became a witness to church-political events of the 18th century. Both attempts to translate it into Russian were not completed by printed publication. After the translation by Iakov (Blonitsky), the "Epistle" was forgotten for almost a hundred years until Count Protasov found the manuscript and commissioned the publication of the Greek text and its translation to Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov). The printed editions of the translation (1838) and the Greek text (1840) contained the Metropolitan's censorial edits.

Filaret's work on the text of the Confession was reflected in the text of the third edition of the Extended Catechism of 1839, since, at Protasov's insistence, the revision was carried out based on the theological tradition represented in the 17th-century dogmatic monuments—the Confession of Faith of Patriarch Dositheus and the Orthodox Confession of Peter (Mohyla) in the edition of Meletius Sirigos. Both monuments were subsequently introduced into circulation by the Synod within the system of theological education.

Using the example of a textological analysis of the interpretation of the 11th article of the Creed, we have shown that the source of the insertion that appeared in the third edition of the Catechism within that interpretation was the Confession. A comparison of the 18th oros (the original text and Filaret's translation) with the insertion made into the interpretation of the 11th article of the Creed clearly demonstrates that Filaret used the Confession as a source and polemicized with it, which found reflection in the Catechism text.

It is noteworthy that Dositheus himself, in the second version of the Confession, completely reworked the 18th oros, acknowledging errors in the first version, as evidenced by a marginal note on p. 81 in the 1690 edition²¹.

The Greek text of 1840 and Filaret's translation require step-by-step study in the context of secondary sources (memoirs and correspondence) regarding changes and omissions, which will contribute to understanding his theological views during the creation of the third edition of the Catechism. The Russian translations by Barsov and Blonitsky, remaining in manuscripts, are of great interest as phenomena of Russian Hellenic studies in the 18th century and await their researcher.

Regarding the question of how justified Filaret's intrusion into the text of Dositheus's Confession of Faith was, we are currently limited to the aforementioned recollection of Filaret as conveyed by Archpriest Alexander Gorsky. This question is also important in the context of the edits made by Filaret to the Greek text and Russian translation of the Book of Rules, the preparation of which was entrusted to him by order of Emperor Nicholas I on the proposal of the Holy Synod [40, No. 12, p. 754–766]; [41]. The edits concerned, among other things, the 85th Apostolic Canon on the question of the biblical canon [42, p. 291]. And we know that issues related to Holy Scripture were burning ones for Filaret, whose main life's work was the creation of a Russian translation of Scripture and the Catechism for the purpose of enlightening the Russian people.

Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov on Political Systems

[...] Brianchaninov, for instance, wrote that on the one hand, "power is linked with force, subordination is linked with suffering. So it is today; and so it always will be." On the other hand, "Our Savior gave mankind spiritual freedom, but he didn't eliminate authority: In his time of wandering on this earth he subordinated himself to the secular management of the world, saying that this was not his Kingdom" [64] The Christian was obliged to accept with a spirit of humility the suffering that came from subordination to earthly authority, and thereby emulate the suffering of Christ. According to Brianchaninov: 

"The Savior of the world established His Kingdom on earth, but a spiritual Kingdom, which can exist in any human society, no matter what the civil system of this society is called, monarchy or republic, or anything else; because the Kingdom of Christ, being not of this world, has no relation to the civil form of the state." [65] 

Christians had to submit to the secular authorities, whatever form these might take, but there was nothing special about autocracy per se. Indeed Brianchaninov believed that "earthly power is nearly always connected with greater or lesser abuses, due to the fallen nature of man, his sin, and his limitations." [66] Still, mankind's inner freedom could be enjoyed under any form of government. "He who has spiritual freedom doesn't need civil freedom," Brianchaninov wrote, "whether he is in slavery, or prison, in fetters, or in the hands of the executioner, he is free. By contrast, even if he enjoys civil freedom, even if he enjoys complete prosperity, a man without spiritual freedom is a slave of sin and of his passions" [67]

64. Brianchaninov, “Arkhipastyrskye vozzvaniia,” 400. (http://www.xpa-spb.ru/libr/Ignatij-Bryanchaninov/pst-2-393-arhipastyrskie-vozzvaniya.html)

65. Ibid., 409–10.

66. Ibid., 412.

67. Ibid., 416.

excerpt from "Russian Conservatism" by Paul Robinson

* * * 

В литературном отношении статьи "Собеседника" – новость в русской духовной литературе. Как новость, они могут показаться особенно занимательными. Иностранная литература богата такого рода сочинениями, над составлением которых неусыпно трудится партия революции и беспорядка. Метод во всех таких сочинениях один: они, выставляя злоупотребление властию некоторых лиц, на этом основании <восстают> против всякой власти, проповедуют равенство и совершенное благоденствие человеков на земле. Революционные сочинения имели и имеют повсюду множество читателей и чтителей. Это естественно: они – произведения разгоряченного воображения, не руководимого ни благоразумием, ни отчетливым знанием, разгорячают, воспламеняют, увлекают неопытных читателей. Часто действуя, по-видимому, против одного рода власти, они всегда действуют против всех властей, по свойству своего метода 1. Неправильность заключений от частного к общему тщетно твердится и повторяется здравою логикою: большинство человеков не обращает внимания на это правило и не знает его. Ни равенства, ни совершенной свободы, ни благоденствия на земле в той степени, как этого желают и это обещают восторженные лжеучители, быть не может. Это возвещено нам Словом Божиим; доказано опытом. Несвободное состояние людей, имеющее многоразличные формы, как это должно быть известно и понятно всякому образованному, есть последствие ниспадения человечества во грех 1. Первою властию была объявлена власть мужа; первою зависимостию – зависимость жены. С этой минуты власть сопряжена с насилием, подчинение сопряжено с страданием. Такими они остаются поныне; такими останутся до окончания мира. Спаситель наш даровал человечеству духовную свободу; но Он не только не устранил никаких властей, – Сам во время своего земного странствования подчинился влиянию властей, злоупотреблявших властию, подчиняясь бремени, которое человечество привлекло на себя грехом. Господь уклонился от всякого вмешательства в временное управление миром, возвестил, что Царство Его не здешнее (Ин. 18. 36), а неправедному судии Своему сказал, что он не имел бы над Ним никакой власти, если б она не дана ему была свыше (Ин. 19. 11). Отношения власти и подчиненности рушатся с разрушением мира: тогда прекратятся начальство и власть (1 Кор. 15. 24); тогда установятся братство, равенство, свобода; тогда причиною единения власти и подчиненности будет не страх, а любовь. Таким единением поглотятся власть и подчинение: существуя, они вместе уже не будут существовать. В противоположность Слову Божию революционные писатели провозглашают уничтожение властей, равенство и братство во время жизни мира. Во Франции не раз удавалось мечтателям увлекать народ к усилиям осуществить эту мечту, могущую существовать в одном воображении. Какие же были последствия? Последствиями были потоки крови, потрясение государства внутренним беспорядком. Для исшествия из затруднительного положения народ должен был восстановлять власть и власти. Опыт доказал, что при восстановлении порядка власть облекается особенными правами и действует с особенною энергиею. "Власти от Бога учинени суть. Противляяйся власти, Божию повелению противляется", – сказал Апостол (Рим. 13. 1, 2). Невозможно слабому человеку устранить определение и распоряжение Божии. Доколе человечество подвержено влиянию греха и страстей, дотоле необходимы власть и подчиненность. Они непременно будут существовать в течение всей жизни мира: только могут являться, являются, будут являться в различных формах.

excerpt from "Statement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic Marriages" 1986

O seguinte é um trecho do documento

"Statement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic Marriages - Metropolitan New York/New Jersey Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue, 1986"

[...]

B. O Planejamento e a Celebração da Cerimônia de Casamento 

O planejamento e a celebração da cerimônia de casamento propriamente dita apresentam certas dificuldades devido às diferenças de disciplina canônica a este respeito. De acordo com a disciplina Católico Romana, tendo as devidas dispensas, o casamento pode ser realizado na Igreja Católica Romana ou na Igreja Ortodoxa. Enquanto a maioria das províncias eclesiásticas Ortodoxas exigem que o casamento ocorra somente na Igreja Ortodoxa, as recentes decisões sinodais de duas (o Patriarcado de Moscou e a Igreja da Polônia) reconhecem a validade do sacramento do casamento realizado por padres Católicos Romanos, desde que o bispo Ortodoxo dê sua permissão. (Veja: Diakonia II: 2/67, p. 202 e III: 1/68, p. 43).

Os sacerdotes de ambas as igrejas são responsáveis por realizar o rito do matrimônio de acordo com suas respectivas disciplinas. Ambas as igrejas permitem a presença de ambos os sacerdotes, o Católico Romano e o Ortodoxo, na mesma cerimônia. Entretanto, os papéis que cada um cumpre podem diferir de acordo com as diferentes disciplinas. Estes fatos devem ser reconhecidos e explicados ao casal de modo a ajudar a promover o entendimento mútuo, se não mesmo o acordo mútuo. Se o casal solicitar a presença especial de um padre da outra igreja, o convite deve ser estendido a ele através do padre oficiante. Os seguintes regulamentos específicos de cada igreja devem ser observados.

Na Igreja Ortodoxa (de acordo com as "Diretrizes para os cristãos Ortodoxos nas relações ecumênicas", da Conferência Permanente dos Bispos Ortodoxos Canônicos nas Américas, 1973, pp. 19-22): 

1. A participação ativa do padre Católico Romano dentro do rito matrimonial não é permitida neste momento, e isto deve ser explicitado a ele no momento do convite. 

2. O padre Católico Romano deve ser convidado a usar sua veste litúrgica (vestido de coro ou alva). 

3. Deve ser-lhe dado um lugar que o distinga da congregação. 

4. No final da cerimônia Ortodoxa, o padre Católico Romano será devidamente reconhecido e apresentado. Ele poderá então conceder uma bênção ao casal e dirigir a eles palavras de exortação e de felicitações. 

5. Os casamentos mistos nunca são celebrados dentro do contexto de uma liturgia eucarística. 

6. O anúncio e a publicação do casamento devem indicar claramente a distinção entre o celebrante Ortodoxo e o padre Católico Romano convidado, evitando termos confusos como "assistido" ou "participado", mas sim indicando que o padre Católico Romano "estava presente e concedeu uma bênção".

Na Igreja Católica Romana: 

1. Quando o padre Católico Romano oficia, a participação ativa do padre Ortodoxo dentro do rito matrimonial é permitida, por exemplo, ler as Escrituras, fazer a homilia, oferecer orações e dar uma bênção. Entretanto, por respeito à disciplina atual que não permite que um padre Ortodoxo participe desta forma, o Católico Romano oficiante não deve convidá-lo a fazê-lo. 

2. O padre Ortodoxo que aceita um convite para estar presente no rito matrimonial deve ser convidado a usar o traje litúrgico permitido por sua disciplina. 

3. Deve ser dado a ele um lugar de honra no santuário. 

4. O padre Católico Romano deve reconhecer e acolher o padre Ortodoxo, de preferência no início da cerimônia de casamento; no final da cerimônia, ele deve convidar o padre Ortodoxo a oferecer orações e palavras de felicitações ao casal. 

5. Embora os casamentos Católicos Romanos-Ortodoxos possam ser celebrados em uma liturgia eucarística, tal escolha deve ser fortemente desencorajada em vista das proibições atuais relativas à partilha eucarística. 

6. O anúncio e a publicação do casamento devem indicar claramente a distinção entre o celebrante Católico Romano e o padre Ortodoxo convidado, evitando termos confusos como "uma cerimônia dupla" ou "um casamento ecumênico", mas sim indicando que o padre Ortodoxo "estava presente e ofereceu orações".

Deve-se notar em particular o fato de que no caso de casamentos Católicos Romanos-Ortodoxos, a disciplina Católica Romana (Código de Direito Canônico revisado, cânon 1127, 1) reconhece a validade do casamento de um Ortodoxo e de um Católico Romano realizado por um padre Ortodoxo. De fato, se uma dispensa adequada da forma canônica for assegurada, o casamento também é lícito. Embora a política Católica Romana permita que um padre Ortodoxo seja um oficiante do casamento em um edifício da Igreja Católica Romana, a prática Ortodoxa requer a permissão específica do bispo Ortodoxo. 

Nem a Igreja Ortodoxa nem a Igreja Católica Romana permitem duas cerimônias de casamento separadas. O consentimento comum de duas pessoas batizadas em Cristo cria uma nova união sacramental cujo significado seria destruído pela repetição do cerimonial de casamento. Ambos aderem a Cristo em fé; ambos compartilham a vida sacramental da Igreja; ambos oram no mesmo Espírito, ambos são guiados pela mesma Sagrada Escritura. Tudo isso converge para tornar este momento mais importante um evento sagrado para os noivos. Três requisitos devem ser cumpridos nos casamentos Católicos Romanos-Ortodoxos: 

1. O rito matrimonial pode ser realizado apenas uma vez, e toda indicação de duas cerimônias religiosas distintas deve ser evitada. 

2. A cerimônia deve ser realizada em um edifício da igreja Ortodoxa ou Católica Romana. 

3. O rito da celebração é o do sacerdote oficiante, e deve ficar claro que uma pessoa está oficiando em nome daquela igreja.

É a recomendação do Diálogo Católico Romano - Ortodoxo da Metropolia de Nova Iorque/Nova Jersey que algumas disposições canônicas sejam tomadas para resolver o problema que tem grandes implicações pastorais para os cristãos Ortodoxos que se casam na Igreja Católica Romana. Quando um cristão Ortodoxo se casa com um Católico Romano em uma cerimônia Católica Romana, o parceiro Ortodoxo geralmente é separado da participação nos sacramentos da Igreja Ortodoxa. A fim de corrigir a situação canônica do parceiro Ortodoxo, a disciplina atual exige que o casamento seja regularizado na Igreja Ortodoxa. Qualquer forma de regularização deve evitar dar a impressão de que o casamento que ocorreu na Igreja Católica Romana não teve um caráter fundamental sacramental. Tampouco deve implicar que uma nova cerimônia esteja ocorrendo. O objetivo é reintegrar o comunicante Ortodoxo na vida plena de sua própria Igreja e restaurá-lo a sua plena posição canônica dentro da Igreja. Na esperança de aliviar este problema canônico, este diálogo oferece algumas recomendações mais adiante para a consideração por parte das autoridades competentes. (Veja Conclusão). 

C. Aconselhamento aos casamentos Católicos Romanos - Ortodoxos sobre a vida familiar e a criação dos filhos 

A educação religiosa das crianças é de responsabilidade de ambos os pais. O casal deve ser aconselhado a considerar seriamente, antes do casamento, a educação religiosa de seus filhos. Reconhece-se que cada igreja deseja que todo esforço razoável seja feito por parte de seu próprio membro para criar os filhos dentro de sua própria comunidade. Espera-se, entretanto, que nenhum acordo prévio que excluiria a possibilidade de criar os filhos na fé Ortodoxa ou na fé Católica Romana seja firmado por qualquer das partes. Dentro do contexto do acordo que ocorre antes do casamento, as seguintes normas devem ser mantidas: 

1. Uma decisão livre deve ser tomada pelo casal para criar os filhos ou na Igreja Ortodoxa ou na Igreja Católica Romana. A prática de criar alguns dos filhos em uma igreja e outros em outra igreja está errada. Ela divide a família, fracassa em refletir a teologia e a prática de qualquer uma das igrejas, e pode levar a uma atitude de indiferença. É igualmente inaceitável negligenciar batizar e catequizar as crianças sob a presunção de que elas "decidirão por si mesmas" quando forem mais velhas. Tal procedimento muitas vezes resulta em que essas crianças tenham apenas uma fé fraca e confusa e uma vida espiritual confusa. 

2. As crianças devem ser ensinadas a amar e respeitar a igreja e as tradições religiosas do outro progenitor. Para isso, elas devem ser capazes de ir adorar ocasionalmente na liturgia e participar da vida devocional da igreja daquele progenitor. Entretanto, toda impressão deve ser evitada de criar as crianças em uma "fé cristã" sem identificá-las com uma comunidade eclesial concreta e uma tradição espiritual. 

3. Quando um parceiro não está compromissado com sua fé e aparentemente dará pouco estímulo ao treinamento religioso dos filhos ou se envolverá no mesmo, então os filhos devem ser criados na igreja do progenitor compromissado em vez de não terem nenhuma conexão com a vida sacramental de qualquer uma das igrejas. (Veja "Joint Recommendations on the Spiritual Formation of Children of Marriages between Orthodox and Roman Catholics", U.S. Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, 1980, acima das pp. 206-208). 

Embora a exposição e a participação em ambas as tradições seja desejável para a unidade da família, há uma série de pontos onde as diferenças na prática entre as Igrejas Ortodoxa e Católica Romana podem muito bem colocar problemas e devem ser discutidas durante o aconselhamento pastoral, como por exemplo: 

1. A frequência de ir à igreja, 

2. Adoração familiar em casa, 

3. Jejuns (mais numerosos e provavelmente observados com mais rigor na Igreja Ortodoxa),

4. Festas, especialmente Pascha/Páscoa e Natal, que podem ou não diferir na data da celebração e nos costumes e exigências concomitantes feitas por eles. 

Ambos os padres devem aconselhar o casal sobre questões morais relativas à vida familiar, enfatizando a semelhança de crenças e tradições, a fim de trazer a maior unidade possível na fé e na moral da família. Os tópicos de aconselhamento devem incluir respeito mútuo, moralidade conjugal (incluindo conduta pré e extramatrimonial), meios aceitos de planejamento familiar, violência familiar, divórcio, dependências químicas. Deve ser dada atenção particular aos temas do testemunho cristão em um casamento misto e espiritualidade pessoal. Sempre que necessário, os sacerdotes devem estar prontos para recomendar aconselhamento profissional ou terapia, além de seu próprio aconselhamento pastoral. É particularmente recomendado que materiais em conjunto [de diálogos entre Católicos-Ortodoxos] relativos ao casamento cristão e à vida familiar e especialmente à criação cristã de filhos sejam desenvolvidos e produzidos conjuntamente para a orientação do clero e para o uso de pessoas envolvidas em casamentos Católico Romano - Ortodoxos. 

The following is an excerpt from the document

"Statement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic Marriages - Metropolitan New York/New Jersey Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue, 1986

[...]

B. The Planning and Celebration of the Marriage Ceremony 

The planning and celebration of the marriage ceremony itself pose certain difficulties because of the differences in canonical discipline in this regard. According to Roman Catholic discipline, given the proper dispen-sations, marriage can take place in either the Roman Catholic or Ortho-dox Church. While most Orthodox ecclesiastical provinces require that the marriage take place in the Orthodox Church only, recent synodal decisions of two (the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Church of Poland) recognize the validity of the sacrament of marriage performed by Roman Catholic priests provided that the Orthodox bishop gives his permission. (See: Diakonia II: 2/67, p. 202 and III: 1/68, p. 43.)

The priests of both churches are responsible for carrying out the rite of marriage according to their respective disciplines. Both churches permit the presence of both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox priest at the same ceremony. However, the roles that each fulfills may differ according to varying disciplines. These facts should be recognized and explained to the couple so as to assist in promoting mutual understanding, if not mutual agreement. If the couple requests the special presence of a priest of the other church, the invitation should be extended to him through the officiating priest. The following specific regulations of each church should be noted. In the Orthodox Church (in agreement with the "Guidelines for Orthodox Christians in Ecumenical Relations," of the Standing Confer-ence of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas, 1973, pp. 19-22): 

1. The active participation of the Roman Catholic priest within the marriage rite is not permitted at this time, and this should be made explicit to him at the time of the invitation. 

2. The Roman Catholic priest should be invited to wear his liturgical vesture (choir dress or alb). 

3. He should be given a place which distinguishes him from the congregation. 

4. At the conclusion of the Orthodox ceremony, the Roman Catholic priest will be properly acknowledged and introduced. He then may give a benediction to the couple and address to them words of exhor-tation and good wishes. 

5. Mixed marriages are never celebrated within the context of a eucharistic liturgy. 

6. Announcement and publication of the marriage should clearly indicate the distinction between the Orthodox celebrant and the guest Roman Catholic priest, avoiding confusing terms as "assisted" or "participated," but rather indicating that the Roman Catholic priest "was present and gave a blessing."

In the Roman Catholic Church: 

1. When the Roman Catholic priest officiates, the active participation of the Orthodox priest within the marriage rite is permitted, for example, reading the Scriptures, giving the homily, offering prayers, and giving a blessing. However, out of respect for the current disci-pline which does not permit an Orthodox priest to participate in this way, the officiating Roman Catholic should not invite him to do so. 

2. The Orthodox priest who accepts an invitation to be present at the marriage rite should be invited to wear the liturgical vesture permitted by his discipline. 

3. He should be given a place of honor in the sanctuary. 

4. The Roman Catholic priest should acknowledge and welcome the Orthodox priest, preferably at the start of the marriage ceremony; at the conclusion of the ceremony, he should invite the Orthodox priest to offer prayer and words of good wishes to the couple. 

5. While Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriages may be celebrated at a eucharistic liturgy, such a choice should be strongly discouraged in view of current prohibitions regarding eucharistic sharing. 

6. Announcement and publication of the marriage should clearly indicate the distinction between the Roman Catholic celebrant and the guest Orthodox priest, avoiding confusing terms like "a double ceremony" or "an ecumenical marriage," but rather indicating that the Orthodox priest "was present and offered prayers."

Particular note should be taken of the fact that in the case of Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriages, Roman Catholic discipline (revised Code of Canon Law, canon 1127, 1) recognizes the validity of the marriage of an Orthodox and a Roman Catholic performed by an Orthodox priest. Indeed, if a proper dispensation from the canonical form is secured, the marriage is also licit. While Roman Catholic policy allows an Orthodox priest to be a marriage officiant in a Roman Catholic church building, Orthodox practice requires the specific permission of the Orthodox bishop. 

Neither the Orthodox Church nor the Roman Catholic Church per-mits two separate marriage ceremonies. The common consent of two people baptized into Christ creates a new sacramental union whose root significance would be destroyed by the repetition of the wedding cere-mony. Both adhere to Christ in faith; both share the Church's sacramental life; both pray in the same Spirit, both are guided by the same Holy Scripture. All this converges to make this most important moment a sacred event for the bride and groom. Three requirements must be ob-served in Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriages: 

1. The marriage rite can be performed only once, and all indication of two distinct religious ceremonies should be avoided. 

2. The ceremony should take place in an Orthodox or Roman Catho-lic church building. 

3. The rite of the celebration is that of the officiating priest, and it should be made clear that one person is officiating in the name of that church.

It is the recommendation of the Metropolitan New York/New Jersey Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue that some canonical provision be made to resolve the problem which has great pastoral implications for Orthodox Christians marrying in the Roman Catholic Church. When an Orthodox Christian marries a Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic ceremony, the Orthodox partner usually is separated from the participa-tion in the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. In order to rectify the canonical situation of the Orthodox partner, current discipline requires that the marriage be regularized in the Orthodox Church. Any form of regularization should avoid giving the impression that the marriage which has taken place in the Roman Catholic Church does not have a funda-mental sacramental character. Nor should it imply that a new ceremony is taking place. The goal is to reintegrate the Orthodox communicant into the full life of his/her own Church and to restore him/her to full canonical standing within the Church. In the hope of alleviating this canonical problem, this dialogue offers some recommendations further on for con-sideration by the appropriate authorities. (See Conclusion.) 

C. Counseling those entering into Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriages concerning family life and rearing of children 

The religious education of children is the responsibility of both par-ents. The couple ought to be counseled to give serious consideration prior to the wedding to the religious upbringing of their children. It is recog-nized that each church desires that every reasonable effort be made on the part of its own member to raise the children within its own community. It is hoped, however, that no prior agreement which would exclude the possibility of raising the children in either the Orthodox or Roman Catholic faith be entered into by either party. Within the context of the agreement which takes place before the marriage, the following norms are to be maintained: 

1. A free decision must be made by the couple to raise the children either in the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church. The practice of raising some of the children in one church and others in the other 

church is wrong. It divides the family, fails to reflect the theology and practice of either church, and could lead to an attitude of indifference. It is equally unacceptable to neglect to baptize and catechize children under the presumption that they will "decide for themselves" when they are older. Such a procedure very often results in those children having only a weak and confused faith and spiritual life. 

2. Children should be taught to love and respect the church and religious traditions of the other parent. Towards this end they should be able to worship occasionally at the liturgy and to participate in the devotional life of that parent's church. However, every impression should be avoided of rearing the children in a "Christian faith" with-out identifying them with a concrete ecclesial community and spiritual tradition. 

3. Where one partner is uncommitted to his/her faith and apparently will give little encouragement to the religious training of the children or become involved in it, then the children should be reared in the church of the committed parent rather than have no connection with the sacramental life of either church. (See "Joint Recommendations on the Spiritual Formation of Children of Marriages between Orthodox and Roman Catholics," U.S. Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, 1980, above pp. 206-208.) 

While exposure to and participation in both traditions is desirable for the sake of the unity of the family, there are a number of points where differences in practice between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches may very well pose problems and ought to be discussed during pastoral counseling, such as: 

1. Church attendance, 

2. Family worship at home, 

3. Fasts (more numerous and probably more strictly observed in the Orthodox Church),

4. Feasts, especially Pascha/Easter and Christmas, which may or may not differ in the date of celebration and in the customs and concomitant demands made by them. 

Both priests should counsel the couple on moral issues concerning family life, stressing commonality of beliefs and tradition, in order to bring about as much unity as possible in the faith and morals of the family. Topics in counseling should include mutual respect, marital mo-rality (including premarital and extramarital conduct), accepted means of family planning, family violence, divorce, chemical dependencies. Par-ticular attention should be given to the subjects of Christian witness in a mixed marriage and personal spirituality. Whenever necessary, priests should be ready to recommend professional counseling or therapy in addition to their own pastoral counseling. It is particularly recommended that joint materials concerning Christian marriage and family life and especially the Christian rearing of children be developed and produced jointly for the guidance of the clergy and for the use of people involved in Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriages. 

UFO phenomenon as demons

"But the UFO phenomenon simply does not behave like extraterrestrial visitors. It actually molds itself in order to fit a given culture." - John Ankerberg, The Facts on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena, p. 10

"Human beings are under the control of a strange force that bends them in absurd ways, forcing them to play a role in a bizarre game of deception." - Dr. Jacques Vallee, Messengers of Deception, p. 20

"We are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon which is largely indigenous to planet earth." - Brad Steiger, [cited in] Blue Book Files Released in Canadian UFO Report, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1977, p. 20

"We are part of a symbiotic relationship with something which disguises itself as an extra-terrestrial invasion so as not to alarm us." -Terrence McKenna [from a lecture]

"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships." - Arthur C. Clarke, New York Times Book Review, 07/27/75

"There seems to be no evidence yet that any of these craft or beings originate from outer space." -Gordon Creighton, Official 1992 Flying Saucer Review Policy Statement

"A large part of the available UFO literature is closely linked with mysticism and the metaphysical. It deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities as well as phenomena like poltergeist [ghost] manifestation and 'possession.' Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomena." - Lynn E. Catoe, UFOs and Related Subjects: USGPO, 1969; prepared under AFOSR Project Order 67-0002 and 68-0003

"UFO behaviour is more akin to magic than to physics as we know it... the modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical." - Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 13-14

"The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon..." - John A. Keel, UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse, p. 299

"A working knowledge of occult science...is indispensable to UFO investigation." - Trevor James, FSR Vol. 8, No. 1, p.10

"Studies of flying saucer cults repeatedly show that they are part of a larger occult social world." -Stupple & McNeece, 1979 MUFON UFO Symposium Proceedings, p. 49

"The 'medical examination' to which abductees are said to be subjected, often accompanied by sadistic sexual manipulation, is reminiscient of the medieval tales of encounters with demons. It makes no sense in a sophisticated or technical framework: any intelligent being equipped with the scientific marvels that UFOs possess would be in a position to achieve any of these alleged scientific objectives in a shorter time and with fewer risks." -

Dr. Jacques Vallee, Confrontations, p. 13

"The symbolic display seen by the abductees is identical to the type of initiation ritual or astral voyage that is imbedded in the [occult] traditions of every culture...the structure of abduction stories is identical to that of occult initiation rituals...the UFO beings of today belong to the same class of manifestation as the [occult] entities that were described in centuries past." -Dr. Jacques Vallee citing the extensive research of Bertrand Meheust [Science-Fiction et Soucoupes Volantes (Paris, 1978); Soucoupes Volantes et Folklore (Paris, 1985)], in Confrontations, p. 146, 159-161

"[The occultist] is brought into intelligent communication with the spirits of the air, and can receive any knowledge which they possess, or any false impression they choose to impart...the demons seem permitted to do various

wonders at their request." - G.H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy (1876), p. 254

"These entities are clever enough to make Strieber think they care about him. Yet his torment by them never ceases. Whatever his relationship to the entities, and he increasingly concludes that their involvement with him is something 'good,' he also remains terrified of them and uncertain as to what they are." - John Ankerberg, The Facts on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena, p. 21

"I became entirely given over to extreme dread. The fear was so powerful that it seemed to make my personality completely evaporate... 'Whitley' ceased to exist. What was left was a body and a state of raw fear so great that

it swept about me like a thick, suffocating curtain, turning paralysis into a condition that seemed close to death...I died and a wild animal appeared in my place." - Whitley Strieber, Communion, p. 25-26

"Increasingly I felt as if I were entering a struggle that might even be more than life and death. It might be a struggle for my soul, my essence, or whatever part of me might have reference to the eternal. There are worse things than death, I suspected... so far the word demon had never been spoken among the scientists and doctors who were working with me...Alone at night I worried about the legendary cunning of demons ...At the very least I was going stark, raving mad." - Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 44-45

"I wondered if I might not be in the grip of demons, if they were not making me suffer for their own purposes, or simply for their enjoyment." - Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 172

"I felt an absolutely indescribable sense of menace. It was hell on earth to be there [in the presence of the entities], and yet I couldn't move, couldn't cry out, couldn't get away. I'd lay as still as death, suffering inner agonies. Whatever was there seemed so monstrously ugly, so filthy and dark and sinister. Of course they were demons. They had to be. And they were here and I couldn't get away." - Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 181

"Why were my visitors so secretive, hiding themselves behind my consciousness. I could only conclude that they were using me and did not want me to know why...What if they were dangerous? Then I was terribly dangerous because I was playing a role in acclimatizing people to them." - Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 96

‘If you wanted to bypass the intelligentsia and the church, remain undetectable to the military system, leave undisturbed the political and administrative levels of a society, and at the same time implant deep within that society far-reaching doubts concerning its basic philosophical tenets, this is exactly how you would have to act. At the same time of course, such a process would have to provide its own explanation to make ultimate detection impossible. In other words, it would have to project an image just beyond the belief structure of the target society. It would have to disturb and reassure at the same time, exploiting both the gullibility of the zealots and the narrow-mindedness of the debunkers. This is exactly what the UFO phenomenon does.’

Jacques F. Vallee

* * * 

 "Mas o fenômeno OVNI simplesmente não se comporta como visitantes extraterrestres. Na verdade, ele se molda para se adequar a uma determinada cultura". - John Ankerberg, The Facts on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena, p. 10

"Os seres humanos estão sob o controle de uma força estranha que os dobra de formas absurdas, forçando-os a desempenhar um papel em um jogo bizarro de engano". - Dr. Jacques Vallee, Messengers of Deception, p. 20

"Estamos lidando com um fenômeno parafísico multidimensional que é em grande parte nativo do planeta Terra". - Brad Steiger, [citado em] Blue Book Files publicado no Canadian UFO Report, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1977, p. 20

"Somos parte de uma relação simbiótica com algo que se mascara como uma invasão extra-terrestre para não nos alarmar". -Terrence McKenna [de uma palestra]

"Uma teoria que não pode mais ser levada muito a sério é que os OVNIs são naves espaciais interestelares". - Arthur C. Clarke, New York Times Book Review, 07/27/75

"Parece ainda não haver provas de que qualquer uma dessas naves ou seres sejam originários do espaço exterior". -Gordon Creighton, Flying Saucer Review Policy Statement de 1992

"Uma grande parte da literatura disponível sobre OVNI está intimamente ligada ao misticismo e ao metafísico. Ela trata de assuntos como telepatia mental, escrita automática e entidades invisíveis, assim como fenômenos como manifestação poltergeist [fantasma] e 'possessão'. Muitos dos relatos de OVNIs agora sendo publicados na imprensa popular recontam alegados incidentes que são impressionantemente similares à possessão demoníaca e fenômenos psíquicos". - Lynn E. Catoe, OVNIs e Assuntos Relacionados: USGPO, 1969; preparado sob as ordens 67-0002 e 68-0003 do Projeto AFOSR.

"O comportamento dos OVNIs é mais parecido com a magia do que com a física como a conhecemos... os modernos OVNInautas e os demônios dos tempos passados são provavelmente idênticos". - Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 13-14

"As manifestações de OVNIs parecem ser, em grande parte, apenas pequenas variações do antigo fenômeno demonológico"... - John A. Keel, OVNIs: Operation Trojan Horse, p. 299

"Um conhecimento funcional da ciência do ocultismo... é indispensável para a investigação de OVNIs". - Trevor James, FSR Vol. 8, No. 1, p.10

"Estudos de seitas de discos voadores mostram repetidamente que elas fazem parte de um mundo social ocultista maior". -Stupple & McNeece, 1979 MUFON UFO Symposium Proceedings, p. 49

"O 'exame médico' ao qual se diz que os abduzidos são submetidos, muitas vezes acompanhado de manipulação sexual sádica, é reminiscente dos contos medievais de encontros com demônios. Não faz sentido em um estrutura sofisticada ou técnica: qualquer ser inteligente equipado com as maravilhas científicas que os OVNIs possuem estaria em condições de alcançar qualquer um desses supostos objetivos científicos em um tempo mais curto e com menos riscos". - Dr. Jacques Vallee, Confrontations, p. 13

"A exibição simbólica vista pelos abduzidos é idêntica ao tipo de ritual de iniciação ou viagem astral que se encontra incorporada nas tradições [ocultistas] de toda cultura...a estrutura das histórias de abdução é idêntica à dos rituais de iniciação ocultista... os seres OVNIs de hoje pertencem à mesma classe de manifestação que as entidades [ocultistas] que foram descritas em séculos passados". -Dr. Jacques Vallee citando a extensa pesquisa de Bertrand Meheust [Science-Fiction et Soucoupes Volantes (Paris, 1978); Soucoupes Volantes et Folklore (Paris, 1985)], em Confrontations, p. 146, 159-161

"[O ocultista] é levado a uma comunicação inteligente com os espíritos do ar, e pode receber qualquer conhecimento que eles possuam, ou qualquer falsa impressão que eles escolham transmitir...os demônios parecem ter permissão para fazer várias maravilhas a pedido deles". - G.H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Age and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy (1876), p. 254

"Estas entidades são espertas o suficiente para fazer Strieber pensar que elas se importam com ele. No entanto, seu tormento por elas nunca cessa. Qualquer que seja sua relação com as entidades, e ele conclui cada vez mais que o envolvimento delas com ele é algo 'bom', ele também permanece aterrorizado com elas e incerto quanto ao que elas são". - John Ankerberg, The Facts on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena, p. 21

"Fiquei inteiramente entregue ao pavor extremo. O medo era tão poderoso que parecia fazer minha personalidade evaporar completamente... 'Whitley' deixou de existir. O que restou foi um corpo e um estado de medo bruto tão grande que me arrastou como uma cortina grossa e sufocante, transformando a paralisia em uma condição que parecia próxima da morte... Eu morri e um animal selvagem apareceu em meu lugar". - Whitley Strieber, Communion, p. 25-26

"Cada vez mais eu me sentia como se estivesse entrando em uma luta que poderia até ser mais do que vida e morte. Pode ser uma luta pela minha alma, minha essência, ou qualquer parte de mim que tenha referência ao eterno. Há coisas piores que a morte, eu suspeitava... até agora a palavra demônio nunca havia sido dita entre os cientistas e médicos que estavam trabalhando comigo... Sozinho à noite eu me preocupava com a lendária astúcia dos demônios... No mínimo eu estava enlouquecendo, delirando". - Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 44-45

"Eu me perguntava se eu não estaria nas garras dos demônios, se eles não estavam me fazendo sofrer para seus próprios propósitos, ou simplesmente para seu prazer". - Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 172

"Eu senti uma sensação de ameaça absolutamente indescritível. Era um inferno na terra estar lá [na presença das entidades], e mesmo assim eu não podia me mover, não podia gritar, não podia fugir. Eu permanecia tão imóvel quanto a morte, sofrendo agonias interiores. O que quer que estivesse ali parecia ser tão monstruosamente feio, tão sujo e escuro e sinistro. É claro que eles eram demônios. Eles tinham que ser. E eles estavam aqui e eu não conseguia escapar". - Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 181

"Por que meus visitantes eram tão reservados, escondendo-se atrás de minha consciência. Eu só podia concluir que eles estavam me usando e não queriam que eu soubesse por que... E se eles fossem perigosos? Então eu era terrivelmente perigoso porque estava desempenhando um papel na aclimatação das pessoas para eles". - Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 96

Se você quisesse driblar a intelligentsia e a igreja, permanecer indetectável para o sistema militar, deixar inalterados os níveis políticos e administrativos de uma sociedade e, ao mesmo tempo, implantar no fundo dessa sociedade dúvidas profundas a respeito de seus princípios filosóficos básicos, esta é exatamente a forma como você teria que agir. Ao mesmo tempo, é claro, tal processo teria que fornecer sua própria explicação para tornar impossível a detecção final. Em outras palavras, teria que projetar uma imagem bem além da estrutura de crenças da sociedade alvo. Teria que perturbar e tranquilizar ao mesmo tempo, explorando tanto a ingenuidade dos zelotas quanto a estreiteza mental dos debunkers [desenganadores]. Isto é exatamente o que o fenômeno OVNI faz". - Jacques F. Vallee

Sufi metaphysics and Christian Orthodox trinitarism (Vincent Rossi)

The following is an excerpt from the article "Presence, Participation, Performance: The Remembrance of God in the Early Hesychast Fathers" by Vincent Rossi

[...]
Schuon outlines above several dichotomies that will undoubtedly underlie all our discussions: metaphysics-theology, intellectual-sentimental, esoterism-exoterism, unitarism-trinitarism, metaphysical transparency of forms-opaque doctrinal formalism, and above all, Divine center-human margin. All these dichotomies, or rather, hierarchical dualities, for that is what they are in fact, are rooted in the fundamental epistemic duality: gnosis (knowledge)-pistis (faith), with the former standing higher on the epistemic ladder than the latter. Knowledge-faith, according to Schuon, is the basic duality of all religious expression. Merely noting these dualities, and mechanically putting each thinker or tradition we encounter into one or the other, does not automatically lead us to perfect clarity. For example, what Schuon calls “theology” or “sentimental metaphysics” is clearly not what the early Hesychast Fathers know as theologia, which as an expression indicating union with God transcends even what Schuon calls the “highest metaphysics”. Again, what Schuon calls “extreme trinitarianism” is characteristic of each and every one of the early Hesychast Fathers with whom we will be exploring the practice of the remembrance of God.

Sufi metaphysics, as represented by a thinker like Schuon, is grounded in a logically hierarchical and essentialist conception of reality: Beyond-Being, Being, Existence. Only the Absolute, the totally unqualified, non-manifest Essence, is Beyond-Being. This is That which is “the One”. The Trinity in this conception cannot represent the totally unqualified Essence. The Trinity necessarily stands at the level of Being, the equally non-manifest but proto-determined principle of Existence. Being is thus the “realm” of the “personal” God, which is the first determination of the Absolute, called by Schuon the relative Absolute. Since the hypostases of the Trinity in this view are determinations of the One, and relative to one another, they necessarily cannot be at the level of the absolutely Absolute, but must be relative to it, that is, to the Essence, yet still absolute with respect to the created world; hence Schuon’s notion of Being as the relative Absolute. Such an approach is highly congenial to and perhaps even entirely representative of the “highest metaphysics” of the Sufis, but it is unacceptable to the Hesychasts of the Christian East, whose own understanding of the highest metaphysics is paradoxically Trinitarian, hypostatic/personalist rather than logically essentialist. This explains Schuon’s implied criticism of Christians who are “extreme” trinitarians. He is critical, not of their trinitarianism per se, but of their illogical insistence that the Trinity is the most appropriate way to speak of the Absolute (“as if the three dimensions of space were to be willed into one dimension only”), and of their insistence that Person/hypostasis in God describes the Uncircumscribable better than an essentialist metaphysics. This insistence by the Christian hesychasts is inexplicable to the logically hierarchical metaphysics of the Sufi traditionalists, in which the intellectual principle of logical non-contradiction is primary; or it is explicable in Schuon’s terms only as the stubborn insistence by “bhaktic” theologians of a “Divine right” to irrationality and illogicality. Among the Hesychasts, however, the revelational principle of paradox and antinomy is superior to the principle of logical non-contradition. The Hesychasts were not ignorant of the paradoxical nature of their Trinitarian expressions, as even a cursory reading of the Corpus Areopagiticum or the works of St Maximos the Confessor must show. Hence their trinitarianism cannot justly be characterized as “devoid of metaphysical penetration” or as a form of “sentimental” or “bhaktic” theology, impervious to the subtle gleams of metaphysical light. Furthermore, in my reading of the greatest of the hesychast masters, saints such as Dionysios the Areopagite, Maximos the Confessor, or John of Damaskos, their insistence upon and expression of Divine unity in their trinitarianism seems in no way inferior to the most radical of the unitarists of Islam. Nor does one see in their writings (and it would be easy to supply dozens of texts showing this) the slightest indication that in their “trinitarism” they are guilty of that greatest of Islamic sins against Divine Unity, association or shirk. 

[...]

The meaning of this passage pivots on the insight that for the hesychast, God is forever beyond human knowledge, and yet He somehow reveals Himself to those who seek Him with fervency and constancy. Further, though forever beyond human knowledge, to the Hesychasts of the Christian East, God is forever present, not as transpersonal Essence, which is imparticipable, or as the “first determination” of the Divine Essence, as traditionalist/Sufi metaphysics would have it, but as transcendent Person. This is the true meaning of the hesychasts’ “extreme trinitarianism”, which insists that the absolute Divine Essence, although totally beyond-being, is not an impersonal or non-personalized principle that transcends everything sequent to it, but subsists only as it is “enhypostasized” in the three Persons of the Trinity. For the hesychasts, Divine Personhood enhypostasizing the Divine Essence is the absolutely transcendent principle, not the Divine Essence as an unhypostasized principle standing alone. In the experience of the Divine presence, the Trinity expresses the absolute primacy of the trihypostatic God over the Divine Essence understood anhypostatically. Person essentialized and Essence enhypostatized, is the ultimate mystery. For the hesychasts, then, the Absolute is not transpersonal Essence, but the trans-essential and hyper-personal Godhead, that is, the tri-hypostatic hyper-essential One.

2) The certainty of the Hesychast that God is supremely present as Person leads us to the second question: Who is doing the remembering? The answer given by the Hesychasts is that the created person who is made in the image and likeness of God is capable of remembering God precisely because, like God, he is a person. A person, whether created or Uncreated, is a mystery, never totally circumscribed by a definition, that is, as an essence or a “what”. A person is not a “what” but a “who”, and “who” you are, just as Who God is, is ultimately indefinable, undetermined, and of infinite depth. To say “what” something is, is to circumscribe that something in terms of essence or essential definition; to say “who” is to speak, not of some “thing” which can be defined in terms of its essence, but of some “one”, an ultimately uncircumscribable and indefinable “who”. To say “one” in this sense is to say “who” not “what”. In this same sense, then, the Absolute One is the ultimately uncircumscribable, undetermined, indefinable Who, who is “infinitely beyond all being, potentiality, and actualization”.31 In the Trinity of the hesychasts, to repeat, essence does not transcend person but is always enhypostatized; neither does person transcend essence, as Orthodox personalist theologians like John Zizioulas seem to be saying32, but is essentialized: this is the balanced heart of the highest metaphysics of Christian theologia, not to be confused with the “sentimental metaphysics” that some Sufi traditionalists call theology. Yet the one made in God’s image may only approach God’s presence when his personhood becomes like God’s presence, that is, when his “who” becomes like God’s “Who”. Put in terms of hesychastic methodology, the human presence may be able to stand in the Divine Presence when the potentiality of the likeness to God inherent in the nature of the created person has been activated by acts of purification, asceticism, and prayer. [...] The presence of God as transcendent and uncreated Person, then, is not the conclusion of a rational judgment, but is experienced by a created person in a state of heightened or purified spiritual sensibility, and this cannot come about so long as the soul is dominated by passions of any kind. Transcendent Person gives itself to created person through an uncreated grace in which the created person participates according to the degree of his or her purification and illumination. This participation occurs through the synergy of the benevolence of the Transcendent Person and the efforts of the created person. The ultimate meaning and purpose of the human person created by God is the capacity to participate in the reality of the Divine Transcendent Person through the uncreated energies and attributes of Divine grace.

[...]

Conclusion: The Path to the Heart through the Remembrance of God— Presence/Apophasis, Participation/Apatheia, Performance/Agape 

Let us attempt to summarize what we have discovered so far about the remembrance of God according to the early masters of Hesychasm. 

1) The remembrance of God for the early Hesychasts is intimately linked with the practice of hesychia. 

2) Hesychia—the peace and stillness of heart based on the undisturbed return of the nous (the intellect or eye of the heart) to the heart caused by the liberation of the powers of the soul from the passions—is the only sure way to attain theosis. 

3) The aim of the remembrance of God is theosis (divinization) or theopoisis (deification): participation by man in the uncreated grace of God, grounded in theoria or the vision of uncreated light and attained through the energy of grace by the operation of God and the cooperation (synergy) of man. 

4) The remembrance of God is both a practice and an experience. The essence of the practice is the method of invocation of the most holy name of Jesus. The essence of the experience is participation in the Divine presence, which is signaled by an unprecedented intensification of human energy called “suffering of heart”. 

5) The remembrance of God as suffering of heart is grounded in the remembrance of death, which is the conscious experience of the ever-present boundary between our sinful mortality and the unbearable limpidity of the immortal Divine Presence. Mindfulness of death is conscious experience of sin, desire for repentance, intense compunction that leads to the concentration of the soul’s powers on the contemplation of God.

6) The basic function of the Jesus Prayer in the remembrance of God is to unify human nature fragmented by sin, because God, Whose Presence is perfect Unity, can be realized only in unity. Without the unification of all the powers of the soul, rational, appetitive, and irascible, there can be no true remembrance of God but only ignorance, forgetfulness, and self-indulgent insensitivity. 

7) The invocation of the Name of Jesus moves through several stages, of which three are fundamental: first, attentiveness (prosoche), which requires vocal recitation of the prayer; then noetic prayer (noera proseuche), in which the attention is first internalized in the nous, which then descends into the heart and becomes self-activating; and finally, the incarnation of Jesus in the heart, in which the remembrance of God becomes the ceaseless presence of Christ in the heart.

The act, that is, the phenomenon, of the remembrance of God, if it is genuine, is a paradox walking on the invisible waters of an abyss. On the one hand, the Hesychast tradition insists on the radical unknowability of God. We can know that God is, the saints insist, but we cannot know what God is. On the other hand, the Hesychasts insist equally strongly, as we have seen in the Hagioritic Tome, on true gnosis: the real experience of God in the heart. It is a kind of knowing the unknowable through an unknowing knowledge.[...] As we bring to a close our interrogation of the early Hesychast Fathers on the meaning of the remembrance of God, we are hopefully beginning to appreciate that what they understand by remembrance involves something far deeper and more meaningful than the mere thought of God in the mind or even a pious devotional prayer. To them the remembrance of God is an utterly real experience, indeed a transformative experience. If the experience of the remembrance of God does not involve an actual transformative and transfiguring confrontation with the fire of the Divine presence, a searing awareness of God as a “consuming fire” that actually reveals sin in all its starkness in the soul as it burns it up while healing and transforming the inner man, then it is not really the remembrance of God, but a state of forgetfulness in which the soul indulges itself in the illusion of religious activity while being ignorant of its own radical insensitivity to the Divine presence.