| I was 21 at that time. I started to think everything over, and even now I haven’t stopped doing that. I had to realise that they were right on many issues even from the scientific point of view. There is nothing even to discuss as it is useless to defend something that can’t be defended in principle. The results of my reflections you can find in my book “Earthen Vessels” that has been translated into Russian. This book is about the practice of the Jesus Prayer according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers. And it is quite clear that the practice of the Jesus Prayer was the same both on the East and in the West. Fr. P.: It would be interesting to find out what is the Jesus Prayer in the Western tradition? Quite often we can hear that the specific character of Eastern Christianity is in the inner work that is absent in the West. How truthful is this point of view? Fr. G.: At first I would say that the Catholic Church is a huge organization that consists of billions of Catholics. Catholicism has different internal movements which can conflict with each other, even mutually exclude each other. Many note that, thanks to the discovery of Orthodoxy in the West, people are beginning to find renewed interest in their own spiritual origins. Often that sort of discovery takes place with the help of icons, songs, and books. There are many Russian Saints who are revered in the Catholic world: St. Silouan the Athonite, St. Seraphim of Sarov... We tonsure a lot of monks with the name Seraphim here. Seraphim of Sarov is even included in litanies for commemoration. But there are very strange things as well. And here I am talking as a monk first of all. The origin of western monasticism is from the East. It came to the West quite early: the life of St. Antony was written by St. Athanasius due to the request of Latin monks. If they hadn’t asked, his life wouldn’t have been written down. The original is in Greek, but the most ancient manuscripts are in Latin. So, the East has been the guideline for monasticism for many centuries. But you always have to rediscover this guideline for yourself… Once you lose it, you have to focus on it again. We could see over the centuries how the West periodically rediscovers the East. For instance, there are treatises in France that could find their place in “The Philokalia.” There is an interesting article about it written by an Orthodox historian Jean-Paul Bess called “The footprints of hesychasm on the West.” An interesting character whom I have discovered for myself is the Abbot de Rancй (1626-1700), the founder of the monastery of La Trappe. He was a contemporary of St. Paisius Velichkovsky, but his school, the Trappists, do not exist anymore in the original form in comparison to St. Paisius Velichkovsky. |
| The lives of many monks for example, of Elder Joseph the Hesychast are very popular on the West and are translated into many languages. The book “The Way of the Pilgrim” was translated in the 20th century. This book inspired me. I was a student at that time and had never seen a prayer-rope. I read that you can even pray the Jesus prayer while walking. And I started to pray while walking. On the way to the university and back, I always said the Jesus Prayer and it entered my heart. Now the Jesus prayer is very popular in the West. By the way (“smiling”), if you would like to please me, give me prayer-ropes as a present, short or long ones, doesn’t matter. Faithful who visit me and come for confession often ask for them. I pray to God that we don " t forget again, and another hundred years passes, and we have to again discover Eastern spirituality. Today we have to get to the core of things: the Eastern and Western Churches have to come together. I speak freely about this. They don " t burn people at the stake anymore. We are not speaking about Ecumenism. That word has already become ambiguous. Right away we think of the Dalai Lama, etc. I am not even talking about unity of the Church, as " unity " is understood by each in his own way. That one and the same word can mean many things. Contemporary Catholics can consider " unity " in only one form, the one that they grew up with in the Catholic Church. Orthodox Christians don " t know that kind of institutional unity. Inside one local church? Yes. But not between local churches. And it is because of that, unfortunately, there is no mechanism for settling internal disputes. There is sobornost, of course, but that is another question. Returning to the subject, I have to say that we always need to come back to the Fathers. The ancient “Ambrosian” liturgy contains a litany that lasted until the Second Vatican Council but then it was lost. It contained the following petition, “Let us pray for peace between Churches, for conversion of the faithless, and for peace among barbarians.” |
| Fresco of the Nativity of Christ, Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome. I discovered only later that Santa Maria Maggiore and the other churches have always been the same, but this continuity does not exist on other levels, the more essential levels. It is the same with the Anglicans. They have the Cathedral of St. Augustine in Canterbury on one level, but on the theological level there is no continuity, there is a break. However, at the time I was too young to be aware that there are so many breaks and interruptions in the history of the Western Church. I had to discover this for myself, gradually. People often ask me why I became Orthodox, and whether there was a crucial moment or event in this evolution. There was a crucial moment, and though I have said this before, I will repeat it. I had to discover it—first on the literary level, through books, music, etc. It is same for monasticism—I had to discover its spirit through the writings of the desert fathers. But I discovered real, living Orthodoxy at the age of twenty-one, when I was in Greece. I was a student, not yet a monk. I could not yet enter the monastery because my father wouldn’t allow it. I was too young. I thank heaven that he did not allow it, because that way I had an opportunity to travel to Greece with other students, and to discover living Orthodoxy there. I saw holy monasteries, and even met a holy monk. I went to the Liturgy. This was before Vatican II. The Greeks were extremely kind and friendly to me as a Catholic. Today that would probably be different, because the Catholics have changed completely towards the Orthodox. —For the better, or for the worse? —From the worst to the best. But now the Orthodox keep their distance because they feel invaded. I visited the seminaries and monasteries in Greece, and at one time said to the monks and students, “Everything is fine here, and I like it, but… it is a pity that you are separated from us.” The immediate reply was, “You are wrong, it is you who separated from us.” And so I was confronted for the first time (I was only twenty-one years old) with this fundamental problem of separation which is seen in a different way in the East and West. Who is right? At twenty-one I didn’t have the means to check the answer. Only little-by-little did I obtain them, and so discovered that in fact it is the West that separated from the common foundation. There is the archeological continuity, in the famous churches from the time of Constantine and Helena for example, but at the essential level— theology, Liturgics, and everything else—there is not. My little book, Earthen Vessels, speaks about one little aspect that is very essential: that there was an interruption. |
| —You mentioned before that you have read the book by the German historian Johannes Haller about the history of the Church up to the 1500s, as well as other books about the papacy, such as the one by Abbe Guettée. —Yes, in fact I am reading the book by Haller now. It is purely a history book, while the book by Guettée is polemics. You see, Haller was impartial, very quiet, and he had free access to the Vatican library. It is an objective history book, has very quiet spirit, but is very powerful. The facts are overwhelming. —You have said that you are glad you are reading about Church history now, and not earlier, because it could have caused you to lose your faith. Could you elaborate on that? You think you needed to be stronger in order to face the facts. Is that correct? —I feel that faith in young people needs to be preserved, protected. When you have a solid foundation, sufficient criteria in your mind, and stronger faith, you will be able to judge. —You mean a strong foundation in the Christian faith, and not necessarily in the Roman Catholic faith? —Yes, then you can confront yourself with this mass of historical facts. —Because you feel that these facts taken by themselves may be too devastating or scandalous for people? —Yes, of course. You see, history is not theology. History is just the facts—what happened. Haller’s work describes all the ups and downs... it is fascinating, but it is true history. It makes you wonder... —History, warts and all? —Yes, with all the warts; and the Pope’s claim of priority, of being the head of the Church. It is very odd. In as early as the fourth century, Pope Damasus claimed that the Roman Church (not the Pope—yet) has primacy over all the other Churches, because of what Jesus Christ said to Peter: “You are a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (cf. Mt. 16:8) So they, Rome, have very much identified this rock with an institution, with something visible—the Roman Church. Although very many fathers of the Church, both East and West, identify this rock, as St. |
| Christ called His disciples individually. He did not make His appeal to the crowd, but He always chose two brothers, and then another two brothers: follow Me. It was the same thing with this famous young man, who did not want to respond. I understood that this was me, today, and that I had to respond and, moreover, that response could only be “yes.” Curiously, I was certain at the same time that this “yes” signified that I should become a monk, although I had never seen a monk. I had read a few Fathers, but I had not yet been to Greece. Later I began to look for how to realize this calling. In the West this was not so easy. In the Orthodox world there is simply monasticism, while in the West there exists an infinity of orders and institutions, each of which has its own specificities, and thus one has to choose among all these. Choosing one order means not doing what the other orders are doing. In the end I decided – or God guided me – to choose the most ancient order in the West: the Benedictine Order, the roots of which go back to the undivided Christian Church of the seventh century, to someone who is a great saint of our Church as well. You see, it was all very simple. Everyone is called in his own way. God calls everyone in a personal manner, for He alone knows the human heart. He alone created the human heart, and He alone can know it, as it is said in the Scriptures and in the Fathers. Then one is called to the conjugal life, and another to the sacerdotal life of a priest in the world, another to the monastic life and sometimes, as in my case, later even to the hermitic life. For, as you know, for thirty-two years I have lived as a hermit in the mountains of Ticino in Switzerland. I remember very well that when the decision was made for me to leave for the hermitage, one of the oldest monks, the founder of Chevetogne, Dom Lambert Beauduin, said to me: “I understand you: this is a second vocation.” Because he himself had received a second vocation. He had been a monk of Maredsous, one of the principle monasteries in Belgium for many years; but later, when Amay/Chevetogne was founded, he had this vocation. This was very risky: to leave a large, powerful, rich abbey and embark on this adventure, because no one really foresaw whether it would meet with success or failure. At first – this was in the 1920s – people looked at him somewhat askance, because it seemed strange what this monk wanted to realize: to build a bridge between East and West. But it was a success, as you see. They still exist and offer their services in a very disinterested manner. But for me this wasn’t enough in the end. |
| What is the difference between the monastic life in Russia and in Europe? It is very difficult to give a response, because everything is continually changing, everything is in motion. Orthodox and Catholic monasticism share a common roots, but they have been evolving differently for the past seventeen hundred years. At first they were very close: there was intercommunion during the first millennium and one could move from one monastery to another. You probably know that the Benedictines, the Amalfitians, were among the founders of Mount Athos. Thus it was possible to coexist. But later, by the end of the first millennium, Western monasticism took a different direction, but now that’s a question of history. And the evolution has continued in the West – as it has in the East as well. In Russia, to speak of Russian monasticism, there was this institutional rupture – that’s how I understand it, essentially – with the practical suppression of the institution of monasticism and the razing of monasteries to the ground. But in my opinion – and here I am not in agreement with my brethren in Russia, who see things otherwise – there was no interruption at a spiritual level. Because in the person of the Elders, the essence of monasticism had always been present and was in fact transmitted. It was not the same thing in the West: during the French Revolution there was truly a complete rupture. The old monks from the old monasteries did not enter the new monasteries, which had been founded by secular priests, not by monks. This was a restored monasticism. I personally believe that monks today in Russia would be much better off if they would focus on elements of spiritual continuity rather than on the aspect of institutional rupture. Because the institutional aspect is human, while the spiritual side is divine – it’s the Holy Spirit. I know a bit about the history of monasticism in East and West and what has always been of particular interest to me is the manner – very different in East and West – of reprising the monastic life after a period of decadence. It’s inevitable that there be decadence; things never remain on the same level. |
| What is this peace between Churches? “Churches” are in plural here, although the Creed mentions only One Church. But One Church exists only in a great number of churches. This litany is the program that has to be performed. We have to work on keeping our churches in peace. Today we can see the signs showing that it is possible. In the West, the Orthodox Church is in a minority. It is not large; quite often a congregation is not even able to build its own church. However, there are no problems when the Catholic Church hands over its churches to Orthodox parishes. For example, the Cardinal of Milan handed over three big ancient churches. Our believers are very happy when this happens. People are friendly to the Orthodox faithful nearby. I think that never before did Western people have so much sympathy to Eastern Christians as now. The West only gains from that. I know that this wouldn’t be possible in Russia. And there are some historical reasons that could explain that. Of course, there was a certain evolution regarding this issue, but your problems are not my work… For me personally the ideal would be peace between the Churches, a lessening of existing prejudices to the minimum of most important issues so that with mutual respect we can decide these questions in the future. Fr. P.: The next question would be about those examples that are often taken by the Orthodox as indicators of false orientation of Catholic mysticism. If for the East the crystal purity of the soul is the main condition for inner work in order that the Divine Light would act in it, then the examples of such ascetics as Teresa of Бvila show something very opposite: the aim of podvig is to attain to ecstasy where a person experiences God. Could you please comment on this? Fr. G.: There are two types of mysticism in the Catholic Church: restrained (inner work) and ecstatic. Both schools are rooted in the monastic tradition. The first school that originated in Sts. Macarius, Anthony, and Evagrius is the inner mysticism, “inner work.” But St. Macarius’ Homilies contain the other school too, more affective mysticism. Therefore he is traditionally considered to belong to the softened or semi- Messalianism, that is a kind of ecstatic monasticism. I think, that here we could see just two different spiritual temperaments that confront one another. That’s why it’s difficult to find a common language. The follower of the inner work could say to his opponent, “You are too sensual,” and the latter could reply, “You are too reasonable. You don’t have any inner experience.” And both these opinions would be wrong. |
| However, I have to admit that in the Middle Ages there were purely women’s mystical movements on the West that seem strange to me and are beyond my comprehension. I belong to a different school. I don’t have anything that could help me to understand or feel deeply that affective, ecstatic mysticism. The main rule of any spiritual life for me is restriction and lack of exaltation because exaltation itself is a ground for demonic prelest. This experience we can find today in charismatics. To avoid mistakes that Evagrius calls imitation of spiritual and mystic states, we have to be very careful, wise, and to possess simplicity and purity. Today it is called a self-suggested condition, that is, an imaginative mystic (spiritual) condition. St. Theophan the Recluse, who is very popular in the West, by the way, understood the matter of western mystics very subtly. Once he exclaimed: “Oh, these Western people, they cannot distinguish between psychic and spiritual!” And really, when I talk to people who come for confession, I see how often they mix these things. One has to teach and help people to see the difference between their feelings and true spirituality from God. People quite often feel something deep inside and think “Here it is, here is that true spirituality.” Fr. P. You have just touched upon a very important issue. Both Ignatius of Loyola in his book “The Spiritual Exercises” and Thomas а Kempis in his book “The Imitation of Christ” underline the developing of the imagination as most important. Could one say that even if it is just one of the several schools in the Catholic Church, it is, however, quite weighty and officially recognized by the Catholic Church? Fr. G. No, it is not dominating, but is still wide-spread among the Jesuits. They practice these methods of imitation of Christ even nowadays. By the way, the book “The Imitation of Christ” was very popular in Russia at a certain time. Now the work about the influence of this book on Russia and its history is being prepared for publication. I asked the author of this book if there is any impact of popularity of this book on the image of Christ on iconography. I asked this question because it appeared that at certain time Christ on Russian icons got a very human look that you cannot find in Byzantine icons, a kind of soft and tender sense. Since what time did it happen? This would be a question to the historians of art. |
| Bunge, Gabriel, Rabban Jausep Hazzaya. Briefe über das geistliche Leben und verwandte Schriften: Ostsyrische Mystik des 8. Jahrhunderts. Sophia: Quellen östlicher Theologie 21. Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1982. Этот текст является эксцерптом из 3-го вопросоответа I мемры «Книги вопросов и ответов» (cod. Diarbakir 100, ff. 13r–15r), однако имеет самостоятельно хождение в рукописях Baghdad, Chaldean monastery syr. 680 (olim Notre-Dame des Semences/Vosté 237); Baghdad, Chaldean monastery syr. 681 (olim Notre-Dame des Semences/Vosté 238); Vat. syr. 509; Mingana syr. 601. По-видимому, глава из ныне утерянного трактата «О созерцании и его видах». Единственная рукопись Seert 78, содержавшая трактат полностью, исчезла во время геноцида ассирийского населения Оттоманской империи в 1915 году. Mingana, Alphonse, ed. Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshni, Edited and Translated with a Critical Apparatus. Vol. 7: Early Christian Mystics. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1934. В основном тексте слово «Дух» ( r ), которое в сирийском языке женского рода, во всех случаях выступает источником согласования по мужскому роду ( srhd-r, а не srhd-r , и т. д.), как указывающее на Духа Святого. В заглавии, однако, встречаются оба варианта: в первой половине надписания глаголы и местоимения согласуются со словом «Дух» по женскому роду, во второй половине по мужскому. Слова в треугольных скобках пропущены в ркп. Vat. sir. 509, но имеются в ркп. Mingana syr. 601. Ср. прп. Макарий Египетский. Собрание II. Слово 18.8 (PG 34, 640BC): «Но иногда как бы плачут и сетуют о роде человеческом, и молясь за целого Адама, проливают слезы и плачут воспламеняемые духовною любовию к человечеству. Иногда такою радостию и любовию разжигает их Дух, что, если бы можно было, вместили бы всякого человека в сердце своем, не отличая злого от доброго. Иногда в смиренномудрии духа столько унижают себя пред всяким человеком, что почитают себя самыми последними и меньшими из всех». |
| Ambrose of Milan did in the year 382, with the faith of the people. It is the confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of the Living God. It was not Peter’s personal faith; he was not a better theologian or apostle than the other Apostles. It was revealed to him by the Father. This is the rock which cannot be destroyed. Peter shortly afterwards proves that he did not understand anything of this confession. He is called a “devil”. The Lord says, “Get thee behind me, satan” (cf. Mt. 16:23), and so on. Not only St. Ambrose, but the most important fathers of both the East and West also say the same thing. For the Roman Catholic, it is absolutely obvious that this rock is the person of Peter. And Peter according to tradition died in Rome, and therefore it must be the Roman Church, and his successor, the bishop of Rome, who is this rock. But Peter was in many places. Why does it only have to be the place where he died? Many people could claim to have his tomb... but he died in Rome, as did St. Paul. But is this sufficient reason for this city, which was the capital of the Roman Empire at the time, to become the head of all the Churches, too? If there is any city that could lay claim to that title it would be Jerusalem, the city where our Lord died, and not Peter. In Jerusalem is the tomb of our Lord, and there He resurrected. The head of the Church is in any case our Lord. —This always seemed to me to be a devastating example of what is called in Russian плотское мудрование —fleshly mindedness, a purely earthly way of thinking. —Yes, and it immediately took hold. And what is so shocking in this history of the papacy by Haller is precisely this worldly aspect—how the spiritual means, such as excommunication and interdict, have been used continuously, for hundreds of years, just for political reasons. And what is even more shocking is that people didn’t even bother to obey these interdicts. Whole countries were under interdict; that means no Mass, no Sacraments, no bells—nothing. |
|
|
