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.

Florovsky on Sophia

The following is an excerpt from the article  "ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑ vs ΣΟΦΙΑ The contribution of Fr. Georges Florovsky to the rediscovery of the Orthodox teaching on the distinction between the Divine essence and energies" by Stoyan Tanev 

[...]

Interestingly enough, Florovsky rarely talks about Sophia. “It is particularly startling to discover that there seems to be absolutely nothing” in Florovsky’s lifetime corpus of published writing that could qualify as an explicit attack on sophiology.147 However, Florovsky’s writings abound in what can be characterised as indirect criticism of sophiology. Most of them were scholarly studies which aimed “to expose weaknesses in the theoretical or historical underpinnings of the sophiological edifice, doing so, however, without referring to the sophiological teaching by name.”148 One of the few places where Florovsky discusses the concept of Sophia is in a letter written to Bulgakov on July 4/22, 1926, where he argues that acquaintance with Palamas would have made his Sophia unnecessary: 149

“As I have been saying for a long time, there are two teachings about Sophia and even two Sophias, or more accurately, two images of Sophia: the true and real and the imaginary one. Holy churches were built in Byzantium and in Rus’ in the name of the former. The latter inspired Solovyov and his Masonic and western teachers - and goes right back to the Gnostics and Philo. Solovyov did not at all know the Church Sophia: he knew Sophia from Boehme and the Behmenists, from Valentinus and Kabbalah. And this Sophiology is heretical and renounced. That which you find in Athanasius relates to the other Sophia. And one may find even more about Her in Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, from which there is a direct line to Palamas. The very terminology - ousia and energeia has its beginning in Basil the Great. I see no difficulty in this terminology. Aristotle has nothing to do with this. The basic thought of Cappadocian theology can be reduced to a precise distinction of the inner-divine Pleroma, of the Triune fullness of all-sufficient life, and it is this that is the ousia, pelagas, tis ousias in Damascene, – and: the ‘outward’ [vo vne] direction of Mercy, Grace, Love, Activity - Energeia. The entire question (speculatively very difficult) is in this distinction. In the perceptible sense, this is the explanation of the very idea of creation, as a Divine plan-will about the other, about not-God. Ousia – according to Basil the Great and according to Palamas - is unreachable and unknowable, it is ‘in light unapproachable.’ But ‘the very same God’ (Palamas’ expression) creates, that is, offers another, and for that reason is revealed ‘outward’ [vo vne]. It is this that is ‘Energy,’ ‘Glory,’ ‘Sophia’ - a non-hypostatic revelation of “the same” God. Not ‘essence,’ not ‘personhood,’ not ‘hypostasis.’ If you like, yes, - Divine accidentia, but accidentia of ‘the very same’ God or God ‘Himself.’ And it is precisely to this that Palamas’ thought leads - the accent is on the fullness and full meaning tis Theotitos. If you like, Sophia is Deus revelatus, that is, Grace. Grace - this is God to the world, pros ton kosmon (and not pros ton Theon, as in John 1:1 about the Logos). Sophia is eternal, inasmuch as it is thought - the will of the Eternal God, but it is willed - a thought about Time. There is much on this theme in Blessed Augustine. Sophia - is not only thought, ‘idea,’ kosmos noitos, but is will, power… And in God there is not, God does not have non-eternal powers and wills, but there is will about time. Sophia never is world. The world is other, both in relation to grace and in relation to the ‘original image.’ Therefore ‘pre-eternity’ and ‘pre-temporality’ of will - thoughts about time does [sic] not convert time into eternity. ‘Ideal creation,’ ‘pre-eternal council,’ toto genere is different from real creative fiat. Sophia is not the ‘soul of the world.’ This negative statement distinguishes the Church teaching about Sophia from the Gnostic and Behmenist teachings about her. Sophia is not a created subject, it is not a substance or substrata of created coming-into-being [stanovleniia]. This is gratia and not natura. And natura = creatura. Sophia - is not creatura. Along with this, it is not hypostasis, but thrice-radiant glory.”

This letter is most representative for the identification of some of the key characteristics of Florovsky’s theological approach: the rejection of Solovyov’s legacy in Russian religious philosophy; the firm foundation of his theology in Patristics starting with the theological contribution of St Athanasius the Great; the clear distinction between Divine nature and will as well as the location of the solution of the sophiogical problematics in the Palamite distinction between Divine essence and energies; and last but not least, the relevance of the doctrine of creation for Christian theology in general. Florovsky will further develop his ideas in a number of future works.150

147 Alexis Klimoff, “Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological controversy,” p. 75. 

148 Ibid., p. 76. 

149 The letter has been published in Russian: А.М. Пентковски, “Письма Г.Флоровского С.Булгакову и С.Тышкевичу,” Символ - Журнал христианской культуры при Славянской библиотеке в Париже, № 29, 1993, с. 205, and recently translated in English. The English version can be found online at: http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2009/05/palamas-florovsky-bulgakov-and.html (15.08.2010).

150 Georges Florovsky, “Creation and Creaturehood,” Chapter III of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. III: Creation and Redemption (Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1976), pp. 43-78; “The Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius,” Studia Patristica, Vol. VI, Papers presented at the Third Conference on Patristic Studies, held at Christ Church, Oxford, September, 1959 (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1962), pp. 36-57; “The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy,” Eastern Churches Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1949, Supplementary issue on Nature and Grace; “St Gregory Palamas and the tradition of the Fathers,” Sobornost, Vol. 4, 1961, pp. 165- 176, and also in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. 1, pp. 105-120.

Excerpt from the article "The Universal Tradition" by Philip Sherrard

The following is an excerpt from the article  "The Universal Tradition" by Philip Sherrard

[...]

What, though, is less convincing about Guenon's presentation of Tradition is the idea that behind the various forms of religious tradition as we encounter them in the world stands, what he calls, a primordial and universal—purely metaphysical—Tradition of which the various re ligious traditions are as it were but local and partial expressions. The idea appears to involve a kind of circular argument. You can only obtain true metaphysical knowledge, Guenon claims, by means of initiation into it through a particular tradition in which this knowledge is en shrined or embodied. You cannot, that is to say, while standing outside all traditions, survey them as it were impartially and come to the conclu sion that this one rather than that one enshrines the Truth to a greater degree, because a capacity to recognize and realize the Truth presup poses that you have already attached yourself to a tradition and been initiated through it into the Truth. This means that your idea of the Truth, in the absolute sense, is dependent upon the degree to which the Truth, in the absolute sense, is enshrined or embodied in the tradition through which you have received your knowledge of it.

Having received your knowledge of the Truth in this way—and it is, according to Guenon, the only way you can receive it in an authentic fashion—it is surely illegitimate for you to take a further step and say that the tradition through which you have recognized and realized the Truth enshrines the Truth in a way that is more complete than the way it is enshrined in other traditions, so that this tradition—your tradition— represents the primordial and universal Tradition, the Tradition par ex cellence, while other traditions are but adaptations made in order to cater for the limitations of the capacities and temperaments of the par ticular groups of humanity to which they are addressed. To do this is, as I said, to argue round in a circle, which is a game that anyone can play at. 

Yet this is what Guenon does in identifying the metaphysical Trad ition in a primordial and universal sense with the tradition of the Ved anta, seen in the perspective of interpretation given to it by Shankara, and in using the criteria provided by this tradition in order to judge the status, with respect to metaphysical Truth in its purest form, of other traditions. 

Moreover, to say that Vedanta represents the primordial Tradi tions, and is therefore the purest and most perfect of the traditions, be cause it is the original tradition of mankind in a purely chronological sense, is only to repeat the circular argument in another form. Here there are two things to be said. The first is that this assertion about the chronological priority of the Vedanta doctrine itself begs an absolutely vital question. Because although you may say that Vedanta is the oldest spiritual tradition known to mankind, you cannot avoid the question of who you choose to acknowledge as your guide and master in the matter of the interpretation of this tradition. Guenon in fact chose Shankara (rather than, say, Ramanuja); and Vedanta in the extreme non-dualist or monist form given to it by Shankara dates from the 8th century A.D. or thereabouts. 

Yet apart from this, you can only say that Vedanta enshrines most fully the primordial tradition because it is the original spiritual tradition of mankind in a purely chronological sense if you have already accepted a theory of time according to which man's highest state of spiritual re ceptivity, and hence his most pure and perfect form of metaphysical knowledge, coincide with the opening cycle of the great cosmic cycles; and this theory of time, and of the progressive degeneration of the cy cles, is of course part and parcel of the Hindu tradition and is taken from that tradition. If you take your theory of time from, say, the Christian tradition, there is nothing to support the idea that the original state of mankind, chronologically speaking, is the most perfect state. A certain condition of spiritual vacuum is needed in order to locate the most per fect and purest form of things in the remote past, just as it is needed in order to locate it in the remote future, in the manner of Karl Marx or Teilhard de Chardin. 

You can have an idolatry with respect to the past, just as you can have an idolatry with respect to the future. If the second leads to a kind of iconoclasm in which you destroy all inherited traditional forms be cause they represent so many obstacles in the way of man's progress into the future, the first can lead to a kind of stagnation which so ties the human spirit to the revolving wheels of the accumulated habit of cen turies that it becomes impossible for it to embrace new visions, not of the future but of the ever-renewing eternal realities themselves. This is the negative, the mechanical spirit of tradition, and it is in its own way as materialist as the dreams of a Utopian future. It is blindly pious, but not spiritual. It shuts the door of prophecy and consequently of the fa culty which is the correlative of prophecy, the Imagination. Is not this why the Ishopanishad says: "Truth is both finite and infinite at the same time; it moves and yet moves not; it is in the distant, yet also in the near; it is within all objects and without them"?

Also it may be said that Guenon's idea of metaphysical realization gives virtually exclusive pride of place to the intelligence, and, as one would expect from a disciple of Shankara, he regards knowledge as the primary means of deliverance. He does not, for instance, attribute to love any place in the process of transforming the human being into the likeness of God. In fact, for Guenon, love has no metaphysical status whatsoever. As he declared at a discussion in 1924, when he had already reached full maturity, love is merely something "sentimental and in con sequence secondary". That is to say, by definition love cannot for Guenon be that by means of which man can attain perfection, or that without which he cannot achieve wisdom—because love is inseparably bound to wisdom—or that in which he rises to the heights of true con templation. I cannot believe that this typifies Hinduism in general, however much it may typify certain forms of Hinduism. 

Indeed, behind Guenon's presentation of metaphysical doctrine I think one can discern a very distinctive principle at work, one which he applied to the formulation of metaphysical doctrine with extreme rigour. This principle is evident in the status he accorded with respect to such formulation to the human reason and its logic. Put in its simplest terms, for him metaphysic, although it stands above reason, cannot con tradict reason. This is to say that, when it comes to the question of repre senting metaphysical doctrine in terms that are accessible to the human intelligence, if you can demonstrate in purely logical and rational terms that a certain metaphysical principle is and must be superior—more all inclusive, less limited and determined—than another, then this first principle on that account must stand higher in the metaphysical order than the second. Since it can be demonstrated in a perfectly logical and unambiguous manner that the metaphysical principle which is totally unqualified, impersonal and does not admit any particularization or participation is and must be more all-inclusive, less limited and less de termined than any other principle than it is possible for the human mind and its logic to conceive, then, according to this view of things, that prin ciple must be the metaphysical Absolute.

Hence, in this perspective, any tradition which does not identify the metaphysical Absolute with a principle that is totally unqualified, im personal, and so on, must be of a lower order, metaphysically speaking, than a tradition which does identify the Absolute in this way. This, as I said, is quite unambiguous, given the assumption that underlies it. What is ambiguous is why one should accept in the first place the principle of rational and logical demonstration that leads to such a conclusion. The only intelligible answer to this question is to say that you accept it be cause it is an axiom of the tradition to which you have given your adher ence, and hence it determines the manner in which metaphysical know ledge is formulated within that tradition. But this is merely another example of the same circular argument about which I have been speak ing. Because, had you given your adherence to a tradition in which this particular idea of the relationship between logic and metaphysic—the idea, that is to say, that metaphysic cannot contradict reason—is not taken as axiomatic, you would be under no compulsion to reach the con clusion which it imposes.

Yet if this concept, of a primordial Tradition in the way in which Guenon envisages it, is so hedged about with a priori assumptions that it must be seen either as an act of faith or as purely arbitrary, this does not invalidate his idea of what constitutes the main features of Tradition as such. What it does mean, on the other hand, is that the claim to speak in the name of the Tradition, whether one calls it 'universal' or 'metaphysical' or 'primordial', must be treated with considerable care; and that correspondingly the idea of a universal religion, or the propos ition that 'all Truth is one', in itself neither resolves the question of which tradition enshrines the most total revelation of the Truth, nor es tablishes the equal authority and authenticity of all the traditions. 

One must not forget that the significance that a certain tradition has for one, and the degree and firmness of the assent one gives to it, depend not so much on its demonstrable probabilities, as on the strength of one's attachment to it, or faith in it, in the first place. This by no means exempts one from the necessity of the acceptance of, and faith in, a par ticular tradition, which fulfils the conditions, as described by Guenon, that constitute a tradition, if one is to realize the spiritual potentialities that lie in the depths of each one of us; nor does it exempt one from the necessity of directing one's primary loyalty towards the tradition of one's choice and to deepening one's experience of it. Yet it also imposes on one the obligation to respect and honour signs of wisdom, sanctity and grace wherever and whenever they occur, and whatever the tradi tion that has nourished them. 

Comentário sobre bibliografia recomendada para o estudo de religiões comparadas e 'cosmologia' tradicional do ICLS

Comentário sobre bibliografia recomendada para o estudo de religiões comparadas e 'cosmologia' tradicional do ICLS:

Todos grifados em amarelos são autores perenialistas

Todos grifados em vermelho são autores perenialistas

Todos grifados em vermelho são autores perenialistas

Todos grifados em vermelho são autores perenialistas

Autor grifado em vermelho é perenialista

Aprender protestantismo com Jacob Boehme e E. Swedenborg?