Larchet's Review of Tatakis

Here is my translation from the French of Jean-Claude Larchet's capsule review of B. N. Tatakis, Christian Philosophy in the Patristic and Byzantine Tradition, edited, translated, and annotated by Protopresbyter George Dion. Dragas (Rollinsford, NH: Orthodox Research Institute, 2007).

Basil Tatakis (1896-1987), Professor of Philosophy at the Aristotle University of Thessalonika, is well known as an historian of Byzantine thought, inasmuch as his La philosophie byzantine was included as an independent installment in Emile Brehier's famous Histoire de la philosophie. Edited, translated, and annotated by Protopresbyter George Dragas, Professor of Patrology at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Boston), this book, dedicated to "Christian Philosophy in the Patristic and Byzantine Tradition," differs from its predecessor, and should not be confused with it. Made up of eighteen chapters subdivided into multiple and often very brief sections, it is intended as a textbook providing a comprehensive approach rather than in-depth analysis. The simplicity of its style, even when tackling complex questions, destines it for a large public.

Posing first of all the question of whether there is a Christian philosophy (chapter 1), he responds in the positive by showing the specifics of this philosophy – notably in relation to ancient Greek philosophy – focusing on the particular character of its conception of the relationship between faith and reason (chapters 2 and 3). It then presents the work of the first centuries and the different problems that faced Christian thinkers (chapter 4), before analysing Byzantine thought in its particularities (chapter 5). It then focuses on identifying the "meaning of Orthodoxy" (as first defined) for Christian thinkers (chapters 6 and 7), and then presents "Byzantine mysticism" through several of its great representatives: John Climacus, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, Nicholas Cabasilas, and Gregory Palamas (chapters 8-10). The following several thematic chapters are dedicated to the iconoclastic debate (chapter 11), the question of predestination and self-determination (chapters 12-13), and the place of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Byzantium (chapters 14-17), and finally "Byzantine science" (chapter 18). This study is complemented by a select bibliography, an index, and biographies of the author and the editor.

Professor Tatakis' La philosophie byzantine, mentioned above, is also available in English translation (at an outrageous price).

Applauding the Preacher in the Early Church

Ever wondered what teaching and preaching were like in the early Church?

Fortunately we have the first-hand account of Egeria, a Spanish nun who visited the Holy Land in the fourth century. She was thoughtful enough to write to her convent back home with detailed descriptions of the Holy Land and particularly of worship in Jerusalem. Here she is describing the instruction of the catechumens by the bishop of Jerusalem during Great Lent:

His subject is God's law; during the forty days he goes through the whole Bible, beginning with Genesis, and first relating the literal meaning of each passage, then interpreting its spiritual meaning. he also teaches them at this time all about the resurrection and the faith.

And this is called "catechesis." After five weeks' teaching they receive the Creed, whose content he explains article by article in the same way as he explained the Scriptures, first literally and then spiritually. Thus all the people in these parts are able to follow the Scriptures when they are read in church, since there has been teaching on all the Scriptures from six to nine in the morning all through Lent, three hours' catechesis a day. At ordinary services when the bishop sits and preaches, ladies and sisters, the faithful utter exclamations, but when they come and hear him explaining the catechesis, their exclamations are far louder, God is my witness; and when it is related and interpreted like this they ask questions on each point. (46:1-4)

Egeria then describes the introduction to the Christian Mysteries to the newly-baptized just before Pascha (Easter):

Then Easter comes, and during the eight days from Easter Day to the eighth day, after the dismissal has taken place in the church and they have come within singing into the Anastasis [the Holy Sepulcher], it does not take long to say the prayer and bless the faithful; then the bishop stands leaning against the railing in the cave of the Anastasis, and interprets all that takes place in Baptism. The newly-baptized come into the Anastasis, and any of the faithful who wish to hear the Mysteries; but, while the bishop is teaching, no catechumen comes in, and the doors are kept shut in case any try to enter. As the bishop preaches on each point and speaks about it, the appluase is so loud that it can be heard outside the church. Indeed the way he expounds the mysteries and interprets them cannot fail to move his hearers. (47:1-2)

Several points worth noting in this account: It's clear that the role of the bishop was primarily that of teacher and expounder of the Scriptures. (Indeed, in the Orthodox Church to this day the Gospel book is held over the bishop during his ordination.) His teaching of the catechumens first covers the Scriptures and then the Creed, explained "first literally and then spiritually," as was the practice of the Fathers (see here). (This should, incidentally, help put to rest the prejudice that the Church concealed the Bible from the faithful until the Reformers forcibly pulled it out of their cold, dead hands.) What is most delightful, and the reason I selected these passages, is the response of the faithful: they exclaim and applaud almost ecstatically as the bishop interprets the Scriptures and explains the teachings of the Church. These were not the staid, effeminate sermons that have tired many a bottom sitting on wooden pews. Part of the faithful's reaction was due not just to their keen interest in Christian doctrine, but to the fact that these sermons were performed with all the flourish (both rhetorical and physical) of classical Greek oratory. It would be quite a sight to see someone reenact these sermons!

Most important, however, to note is the devision of teaching into that of kerygma-based catechesis for those preparing for baptism, and that of dogma and mystery to the newly-baptized. (In fact, both parts were introduced gradually and systematically, as can be seen from Egeria's full account.) This is a distinction we should be mindful of today. We are to preach Christ crucified, and only then induct initiates into the deeper mysteries of dogma and spiritual life. We are not called to go and preach the dogma of the Holy Trinity, or notions of being and communion, or the practice of the Jesus Prayer and hesychasm: all these are lost, or even harmful, to those who have not first heard the Gospel.

Let's now turn our attention to Antioch at roughly the same time. Glanville Downey, in his marvelous little book Antioch in the Age of Theodosius the Great, recreates the atmosphere of St John Chrysostom's preaching:

If you had passed John Chrysostom in the street, you would hardly have noticed him. At most you would have noted a frail, rather shabby priest. But when, part of the service of the Eucharist being completed, this preacher made his way to the pulpit and began to speak, every man and woman in the congregation knew that this was an experience that did not often occur. It was no wonder that John of Antioch soon came to be known as John Chrysostom, "John of the Golden Mouth." For he had the gift of glorious eloquence, a gift such as not many preachers of the Word before or after him possessed.

The deeply religious mind, the acute and sensitive knowledge of the human soul, the wide and penetrating learning in the Scriptures, and above all, the passionate devotion to the teaching of Christ – all this was magnificently poured forth in a stream of eloquence which would have made him one of the most powerful speakers of the time, whether in a pagan career or a Christian vocation. It was the gift of language in its greatest and noblest dimension, and when it was known that John Chrysostom was to preach, the cathedral was packed. The farmers who came in from the country around Antioch, and the humblest workingman of the city, who understood only Syriac, were grouped at one side of the church, around a deacon, bilingual in Greek and Syriac, who translated the sermon sentence by sentence as it was spoken. A team of shorthand writers took down the preacher's words, for he often spoke extemporaneously, as inspiration came to him. Though the sermon sometimes lasted for two hours, the congregation – standing all the while – never grew weary, and the stenographic reports often record the interruptions of applause which were permitted by custom at the time. (pp. 104-105)

Again the rapt attention and applause! Chrysostom preached in Greek, but each sentence was translated into Syriac for the benefit of the simpler folk. We see something very similar in Egeria's account:

In this province there are some people who know both Greek and Syriac, but others know only one or the other. The bishop may know Syriac, but he never uses it. He always speaks in Greek, and has a presbyter beside him who translates the Greek into Syriac, so that everyone can understand what he means. Similarly the lessons read in church have to be read in Greek, but there is always someone in attendance to translate into Syriac so that people understand. Of course there are also people who speak neither Greek nor Syriac, but Latin. But there is no need for them to be discouraged, since some of the brothers or sisters who speak Latin as well as Greek will explain things to them.

If only some of our Greek and Russian Orthodox hierarchs and clergy would emulate these examples by stooping to employ our vulgar European tongues!

The manuscript illustration aboves depicts the Evangelist Matthew handing his Gospel to St John Chrysostom. I have cited Egeria using John Wilkinson's Egeria's Travels.

P. S. While the Fathers of the Church certain preached with vigor, I don't think they went quite this far.

Practical Advice from the Desert

More practical advice from the letters of Saints Barsanuphius and John:

(#129) Question from the same brother to the Other Old Man [John]. What, then, should I do? For my sorrow at being separated from my wife is persisting violently.

Response by John: It is written about man and woman: "The two shall be one flesh" (Gen 2.24). Therefore, just as if you were to cut off a member of your own flesh, the rest of the body would also be in pain for a while, until the wound is healed and the pain subsists; so also it is necessary for you to be in pain for a while, since your very own flesh has been cut away.

(#290) Question from the same person to the same Old Man [John]. Since I perceive that, when I make a prostration before certain people, I blush a little out of vainglory, should I avoid making such prostrations before those people, or should I simply do whatever comes naturally?

Response by John: Do not deliberately seek to make prostrations before certain people or privately; simply do whatever comes naturally.

(#437) Question: If I perform the sign of the Cross with my left hand, because I am unable to do so with my right hand, is this improper?

Response by Barsanuphius: Well, as for me, whenever I want to perform the sign of the Cross over my right hand, I certainly have to use my left hand to do so.

(#470) Question: There are certain conversations that are indifferent, bearing neither sin nor profit. These may include conversations with someone about, say, the prosperity of cities or their turmoil or peace, or about wars that are going to break out, or other such matters. Is it inappropriate to speak about these matters as well?

Response by John: If silence is necessary even during conversations about good matters, how much more so in matters that are indifferent? However, if we cannot keep silent, being overcome by conversing with others, let us not prolong the conversation in order not to fall into the snare of the enemy through chattering too much.

(#471) Question: Well, there are many occasions when I come to such chattering by discussing matters that are indifferent; and no one escapes sin by chattering. So what should I do?

Response by John: Let us maintain some measure for ourselves in this way. If we have noticed that we have been overcome by the thought to speak once, then let us try our best to prevent this from happening a second time. If we are overcome a second time, then let us be prepared to prevent it from happening a third time; and let us progress in this way during every conversation. So, if the number of occasions that we are given to speak is ten, and one is overcome by temptation nine times and prevents it on the tenth, then one is found to be better than the other who has been overcome by the temptation to speak ten times.

(#658) Question: When I see someone insulting religion and blaspheming the holy faith, I am troubled against this person, supposedly out of zeal. What does this mean?

Response by John: You have certainly heard that no one can come to correction through evil, but rather only through good. Therefore, speak to this person with meekness and long-suffering, advising him in godly fear. And if you see that you are troubled, it is not necessary to say anything to him.

(#686) Another Christ-loving layperson asked the same Old Man [John]: I want to press some Jewish wine in my presser. Is this a sin?

Response by John: If, when God rains, it rains in your field but not in that of the Jew, then do not press his wine. If He is loving-kind to all and rains upon the just and the unjust (cf. Mt 5:45), then why do you want to be inhumane and not compassionate, rather, as He says: "Be merciful even as your Father in heaven is merciful" (Lk 6:36).

(#773) Question: Since every food contains a natural sweetness, is this spiritually harmful to the person who eats of it?

Response by John: God our Master created this sweetness in each food, and there is no harm in eating of this with thanksgiving. However, one should always guard against attachment; for this is what is harmful to the soul.

(#845) A Christ-loving layperson asked the Other Old Man [John]. Is it good for me to suggest to the lord bishop whatever I feel is beneficial for him?

Response by John: This is a good thing, and it is proper for a love that is according to God. Hold your heart in purity before God, and this will not cause you harm. Now, having your heart in purity means not saying anything against anyone out of vengeance, but only for the sake of good itself. Therefore, do not imagine that such a thing is slander; for everything done for the sake of correction is not slander. Nothing good results form slander; whereas, in this case, the result is good. This is why it is not slander.

You really ought to buy the book.

Heresy and Humility

Today we celebrate the memory of Saints Barsanuphius and John, those two great monastic Elders of sixth-century Gaza whose collection of letters remains an eminently practical handbook for all those trying to lead the spiritual life. I cite two questions and answers (numbers 699 and 700) regarding heresy and humility:

Question: If someone asks me to anathematize Nestorius and the heretics with him, should I do this or not?

Response by John: That Nestorius and those heretics who follow him are under anathema, this is clear. But you should not hurry to anathematize anyone at all. For one who regards himself as sinful should mourn over one's sins, and do nothing else. Neither, however, should you judge those who anathematize someone; for each person tests oneself.

Question: But if one thinks, as a result of this, that I believe the same as Nestorius, what should I tell him?

Response by John: Tell him: "Although it is clear that those people are worthy of their anathema, nevertheless I am more sinful than every other person and feel that, in judging another, I may condemn myself. Indeed, even if I anathematize Satan himself, if I am doing his works, then I am anathematizing myself.

"For, the Lord said: 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments' (Jn 14:15). And the Apostle says: 'Whosoever does not love the Lord, let that person be under anathema' (I Cor 16:22). Therefore, one who does not keep His commandments does not love Him; and one who does not love Him, is under anathema. So, then, how can such a person anathematize others?" Say these things to him; and if he persists in this, then for the sake of his conscience, just anathematize the heretic!

Taken from Letters from the Desert, translated by Fr John Chryssavgis. The first volume of the complete collection of their letters, also translated by Fr John, has recently appeared. Fr Seraphim (Rose) has also produced a partial translation from the Russian version.

Statement of the Serbian Church on Kosovo

A public statement from the official website of the Serbian Orthodox Church:

During its extraordinary session held at the Patriarchate on February 17, 2008, the following statement on the latest developments in Kosovo and Metohija was issued by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church, aimed at the national and international public:

Just as countless times before, the Church today once again declares that Kosovo and Metohija were and must remain an integral part of Serbia, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Security Council Resolution 1244, as well as according to all relevant international conventions on human rights, the rights of peoples, and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders. Any other solution represents a violation of God's justice and human justice and represents an act of violence with long-term repercussions, both for the Balkans and all of Europe. All internationally recognized and ratified conventions, none of which have been revoked – starting with the Agreement concluded in 1913, the international resolutions dated 1918 and 1945, the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 adopted in 1999, and the recent acceptance into UN membership of integral Serbia – all confirm that excluding Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia represents a form of violence equal only to the periods of occupation and tyranny that we had hoped conclusively belonged to Europe and the world's past. In this particular case, this means granting new legitimacy to centuries of Ottoman violence, with its impact on the entire region, as well as re-applying the fascist solution (that of Mussolini and Hitler) to the Kosovo issue that dates back to the times of WWII, when Kosovo and Metohija were annexed to so-called Great Albania and thousands of Orthodox Christian Serbs were expelled from their secular homes, just as in 1999, with the objective of having them never return.

We are deeply appalled by the fact that, according to the words of an American Ambassador, Serbia and Montenegro were bombarded in the first place for the sake of the illegitimate and illegal self-declaration of Kosovo independence, which has recently been recognition by the governments of the United States of America, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy and others. Thus, the presumed protection of human and minority rights by using bomb attacks under the code name "Merciful Angel'' represented only a preparation for this final trampling on justice and excoriation from Serbia's breast.

We expect the United Nations and the Security Council to step out urgently in the defense and the protection of the infringed human rights, religious rights, and rights of statehood of the Republic of Serbia, in the spirit of their very Charter and Resolution 1244, as well as its international obligations.

NB: I have edited the English translation for the sake of clarity. The Serbian original is here.

Kosovo Independence

You've read the news, now make sure to keep up with the commentary here, here, and here.

Bishop Artemije's advice to Serbs in Kosovo:

"We are all expecting something difficult and horrible," Bishop Artemije, the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo, told hundreds of Serbs at the St Dimitrije church in the north Kosovo town of Mitrovica.

"Our message to you, all Serbs in Kosovo, is to remain in your homes and around your monasteries, regardless of what God allows or our enemies do," he said.

For background, see my previous posts History is a Scandal, Crucified Kosovo, and Kosovo: The Eleventh Hour.

Most unintentionally hilarious correction (which has since disappeared from the web) from The New York Times story:

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed to President Bush a statement that he did not make. The president did not say “Kosovo is part of Serbia.”

The Price of Puritanism

Today is the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee (Gospel reading: Luke 18:10-14), the first in a series of Sundays that serves to prepare us for Great Lent. St Cyril of Alexandria, in his 120th homily on the Gospel of St Luke, comments on this parable in these words:

Let us therefore, "pray without ceasing," according to the expression of the blessed Paul [I Thess. 5:17]; but let us be careful to do so aright. The love of self is displeasing to God, and He rejects empty haughtiness and a proud look, puffed up often on account of that which is by no means excellent. And even if a man be good and sober, let him not on this account suffer himself to fall away into shameful pride; but rather let him remember Christ, who says to the holy apostles, "When ye have done all those things, those namely which have been commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do" [Luke 17:10]. For we owe unto God over all, as from the yoke of necessity, the service of slaves, and ready obedience in all things. Yea, though thou leadest an excellent and elect life, exact not wages of the Lord; but rather ask of Him a gift. As being good, He will promise it thee: as a loving Father, He will add thee. Restrain not thyself then from saying, "God be merciful to me the sinner." Remember Him Who says by the voice of Esaias, "Declare thou thy sins first, that thou mayest be justified" [Esaias 43:26]; remember too that He rebukes those who will not do so, and says, "Behold, I have a judgment against thee, because thou sayest I have not sinned" [Jer. 2:35]. Examine the words of the saints: for one saith, "The righteous is the accuser of himself in the beginning of his words" [Prov. 18:17]. And another again, "I said, I will confess against myself my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart" [Ps. 31:5].

What answer then will those who embrace the new tenets of Novatus make to this, and say of themselves that they are pure? Whose prayers do they praise? That of the Pharisee, who acquitted himself, or that of the Publican, who accused himself? If they say that of the Pharisee, they resist the divine sentence; for he was condemned as being boastful; but if that of the Publican, why do they refuse to acknowledge their own impurity? Certainly God justifies those who know well their transgressions, and are willing to confess them: but these men will have the portion of the Pharisee.

We then say, that in many things we "all of us offend" [James 3:2], and that no man is pure from uncleanness, even though his life upon earth be but one day. Let us ask then of God mercy; which if we do, Christ will justify us, by Whom and with Whom, to God the Father, be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Novatus (or Novation) mentioned by St Cyril was a Roman presbyter who founded what may have been the first Puritan sect, one very much opposed by St Cyprian of Carthage. Novatus taught not only that those who had committed idolatry could not be reconciled to the Church but, more significantly (and heretically), that the Church is not able to grant absolution of every sin (a prerogative he granted to God alone). As St Cyril implies, such Puritanism comes at the price of pride. The Puritan faces a conundrum: if he emulates the Publican, he must admit of his own sin; but if he emulates the Pharisee, he stands under God's explicit judgment. The Puritan, moreover, makes himself judge, refusing to allow the Church to reconcile sinners to itself. This sin is one about which we today must be especially careful. After nearly a century of the open persecution of Christians by godless regimes, the Church has at long last become able to function freely. It is easy for us, who have lived in comfort and safety, to stand in judgment of the compromises made by many in the Church; but to do so without recognizing our own sins is to take the part of the Pharisee. So, too, is the refusal to acknowledge that the Church can reconcile and absolve those who have sinned. The result of such exaltation of self – I thank Thee, O Lord, that I have not compromised with the powers of this world, unlike them – will be, as the Lord promised, abasement.

Text taken from this edition, sadly out of print, though sermons 1 to 65 (through Luke 10:21) can be found online here. The above icon depicts the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.