Juan_Nadal_Cañellas
[source: De Onsoño – Trabajo propio, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50496270]

I learned earlier this year about the death, a year and a half ago, of Juan Nadal Cañellas (7 October 1934 – 16 January 2016). He was a Spaniard, born in Mallorca, a Jesuit priest of the Byzantine rite, archimandrite of the Byzantine monastery of Santa Petronila de Orient in Mallorca, and one of the most important Byzantine scholars of the past generation. He was, it appears, the person who advocated to Pope Paul VI the removal of the filioque clause from Catholic churches of the Greek rite, a change which formally took place in the year 1972. His main field of research was the life and writings of Gregory Akindynos, an early friend of Gregory Palamas who later became one of his main opponents. Nadal Cañellas edited Akindynos’s major writings and wrote some important studies on Akindynos’s thought; one of the most notable results of his research is to have established that Akindynos actually was himself a practicing hesychast and the spiritual advisor to the Princess Irene-Eulogia Choumnia.

So far as I am aware, almost none of Nadal Cañellas’s writings are to be found in English. Back in 2009, I published on this blog an excerpt from his historical introduction to his French translation of Akindynos’s four Antirrhetic Treatises against Gregory Palamas, under the title Nadal Cañellas on Meyendorff. Today, I have posted to the blog a new page (see the sidebar). It contains a translation of an article by Nadal Cañellas titled “Le rôle de Grégoire Akindynos dans la controverse hésychaste du XIVe siècle à Byzance,” which was published in 2007 in the volume Eastern Crossroads: Essays on Medieval Christian Legacy edited by Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala, pp. 31-58. The article is a kind of abridgment and popularization of a book Nadal Cañellas published in 2006, the second volume of his study La résistance d’Akindynos à Grégoire Palamas. Enquête historique, avec traduction et commentaire de quatre traités édités récemment; it consists of a long historical commentary upon the works of which, in the first volume, he gave a translation.

Nadal Cañellas clearly had some major disagreements with the late Fr. John Meyendorff over matters both theological and historical. If Gregory Palamas is the great hero of Meyendorff’s historical researches, he is, for Nadal Cañellas, a much more questionable figure. To give one example: in his article, Nadal Cañellas gives two citations from Akindynos describing two occasions on which Palamas and his supporters sought to have Akindynos murdered. He also, near the end of the article, mentions that Akindynos died very soon after Kantakouzenos’s triumphant entry into Constantinople in the year 1347, a change in political circumstances which put the party of the Palamites in power; we have no explicit information about how Akindynos died, but, given the two previous murder attempts, it is difficult to refrain from speculating.

I never met Nadal Cañellas, and was sorry to learn that he had died; I had hoped one day to meet him. His photograph, in the Spanish Wikipedia article and in an obituary from the Diario de Mallorca, presents a bearded face that reminds me strangely of Don Quixote. Perhaps the idea of changing people’s minds about Akindynos is not unlike jousting with windmills.

Αἰωνία αὐτοῦ ἡ μνήμη.


(29.viii.17)

A postscript. I speculate above that Akindynos may have died at the hands of those who had tried to kill him before, the party of the Palamites. I should make it clear that that is in fact my own speculation, not that of Juan Nadal Cañellas; neither in the article which I have translated, nor in the monograph (La résistance d’Akindynos à Grégoire Palamas) of which this essay is an abridgment, does Nadal Cañellas speculate one way or the other as to how Akindynos died. In La résistance d’Akindynos à Grégoire Palamas, pp. 284-285, he provides the sole piece of definite information we possess about when and how Akindynos died: it occurs in a note in Philotheos Kokkinos’s Treatise VII against Gregoras. In the note, Philotheos states that, a year after his ordination as Metropolitan of Heraclea (which took place sometime between May and August 1347), he wanted to meet Gregoras, an opponent of Palamism about whom he had heard a great deal, “since Akindynos, the promoter and defender of the impiety after the first one (Barlaam), was already out of the way, having passed most wickedly from this life along with his heresy” (ὁ γὰρ τῆς δυσσεβείας μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον ἔξαρχος καὶ προστάτης Ἀκίνδυνος ἦν ἐκποδὼν ἤδη κάκιστα σὺν τῇ αἱρέσει τὸν βίον μετηλλαχώς). The English Wikipedia article on Akindynos suggests that Akindynos may have died as the result of the plague that broke out in 1348.

Secondly, since the blog format may not be an ideal way of reading Juan Nadal Cañellas’s article, I am supplying here a link to the same text, on Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQV60b6LP2Dj-u01xFoJoW-wTQBYkrw6_CHUczLkLaw/edit?usp=sharing

Years ago, my parish priest, the late Fr. George Mamangakis, recommended that I read St. Basil’s letters. Having come across this letter “To Chilo, his disciple” today, I can see what he probably had in mind. This is simply the old Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers translation, with the Greek and English in parallel columns. The Greek text is taken from PG 32, 348 A360 B.


42.1 Σωτηρίου πράγματος αἴτιος γενήσομαί σοι, ὦ γνήσιε ἀδελφέ, εἰ ἡδέως συμβουλευθείης παρ’ ἡμῶν τὰ πρακτέα, μάλιστα περὶ ὧν ἡμᾶς αὐτὸς παρεκάλεσας συμβουλεῦσαί σοι. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κατάρξασθαι τοῦ μονήρους βίου πολλοῖς ἴσως τετόλμηται, τὸ δὲ ἀξίως ἐπιτελέσαι ὀλίγοις τάχα που πεπόνηται. Καὶ πάντως οὐκ ἐν προθέσει μόνον τὸ τέλος ὑπάρχει, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ τέλει τὸ κέρδος τῶν πεπονημένων. Οὐκοῦν οὐδὲν ὄφελος τοῖς μὴ πρὸς τὸ τοῦ σκοποῦ τέλος ἐπειγομένοις, ἄχρι δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς μόνης ἱστῶσι τὸν τῶν μοναχῶν βίον· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ καταγέλαστον καταλιμπάνουσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν πρόθεσιν, ἀνανδρίας καὶ ἀβουλίας παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐγκαλούμενοι. Φησὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Κύριος περὶ τῶν τοιούτων. «Τίς, βουλόμενος πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι, οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει τὰ πρὸς ἀπαρτισμόν; μή ποτε, θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι, ἄρξωνται ἐμπαίζειν αὐτῷ οἱ παρα πορευόμενοι λέγοντες ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος θεμέλιον ἔθηκε καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἐκτελέσαι.» Ἡ οὖν ἀρχὴ ἐχέτω τὴν προκοπὴν προθύμως ἐπὶ τῷ κατορθώματι. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ γενναιότατος ἀθλητὴς Παῦλος, βουλόμενος ἡμᾶς μὴ ἐπαμεριμνεῖν τοῖς προβεβιωμένοις ἀγαθοῖς, ἀλλ’ ὁσημέραι εἰς τὸ πρόσω προκόπτειν, λέγει· «Τῶν ὄπισθεν ἐπιλανθα νόμενος, τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος, κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω ἐπὶ τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως.» Τοιοῦτος γὰρ ὑπάρχει ὅλος ὁ τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίος, μὴ ἀρκούμενος τοῖς φθάσασιν, ἀλλὰ τρεφόμενος οὐ τοῖς φθάσασι μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μέλλουσι. Τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἄνθρωπον ὁ χθιζὸς τῆς γαστρὸς κόρος, σήμερον τῆς ἐμφύτου πείνης τὴν οἰκείαν τῆς βρώσεως παραμυθίαν μὴ εὑρισκούσης; Οὕτως οὖν οὐδὲ ψυχῆς κέρδος τοῦ χθεσινοῦ κατορθώματος, τῆς σημερινῆς ἀπολιμπανομένου δικαιοπραγίας. «Οἷον γὰρ εὕρω σε, φησί, τοιοῦτόν σε κρινῶ». 1. If, my true brother, you gladly suffer yourself to be advised by me as to what course of action you should pursue, specially in the points in which you have referred to me for advice, you will owe me your salvation. Many men have had the courage to enter upon the solitary life; but to live it out to the end is a task which perhaps has been achieved by few. The end is not necessarily involved in the intention; yet in the end is the reward of the toil. No advantage, therefore, accrues to men who fail to press on to the end of what they have in view and only adopt the solitary’s life in its inception. Nay, they make their profession ridiculous, and are charged by outsiders with unmanliness and instability of purpose. Of these, moreover, the Lord says, who wishing to build a house sits not down first and counts the cost whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply after he has laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, the passers-by begin to mock him saying, this man laid a foundation and was not able to finish. Let the start, then, mean that you heartily advance in virtue. The right noble athlete Paul, wishing us not to rest in easy security on so much of our life as may have been lived well in the past, but, every day to attain further progress, says Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling (Phil 3:13-14). So truly stands the whole of human life, not contented with what has gone before and fed not so much on the past as on the future. For how is a man the better for having his belly filled yesterday, if his natural hunger fails to find its proper satisfaction in food today? In the same way the soul gains nothing by yesterday’s virtue unless it be followed by the right conduct of today. For it is said I shall judge you as I shall find you.
42.2 Οὐκοῦν μάταιος μὲν τοῦ δικαίου ὁ κόπος, ἀνέγκλητος δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ ὁ τρόπος, ἐπιγενομένης ἐναλλαγῆς, τῷ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, τῷ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χείρονος ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖττον μεταβληθέντι. Ταῦτα καὶ τοῦ Ἰεζεκιὴλ ὡς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Κυρίου δογματίζοντός ἐστιν ἀκοῦσαι. «Ἐὰν γάρ, φησίν, ἐκκλίνας ὁ δίκαιος πλημμελήσῃ, οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ τῶν δικαιοσυνῶν ὧν ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανεῖται.» Τὸ δὲ αὐτό φησι καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ· «Ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψας ποιήσῃ δικαιοσύνην, ζωὴν ζήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ.» Ποῦ γὰρ οἱ τοσοῦτοι Μωσῆ τοῦ θεράποντος πόνοι, τῆς ἐν στιγμῇ ἀντιλογίας παραγραψαμένης αὐτοῦ τὴν εἰς τὴν γῆν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας εἴσοδον; Ποῦ δὲ καὶ ἡ τοῦ Γιεζῆ συναναστροφὴ πρὸς τὸν Ἐλισσαῖον, φιλοχρηματίας χάριν λέπραν ἐπισπασαμένου; Τί δὲ καὶ τοῦ πλήθους τῆς σοφίας τῷ Σολομῶντι ὄφελος καὶ ἡ προλαβοῦσα τοιαύτη ἔννοια εἰς Θεόν, ὕστερον ἐκ τῆς γυναικομανίας εἰς εἰδωλολατρείαν αὐτοῦ ἐκπεπτωκότος; Ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὸν μακάριον ∆αβὶδ ὁ μετεωρισμὸς ἀφῆκεν ἀνέγκλητον διὰ τὴν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Οὐρίου πλημμέλειαν. Ἤρκει δὲ καὶ ἡ τοῦ Ἰούδα ἀπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εἰς τὸ χεῖρον μετάπτωσις πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν τοῦ κατὰ Θεὸν πολιτευομένου, ὅς, ἐν τοσούτοις χρόνοις μαθητευθεὶς τῷ Χριστῷ, ὕστερον μικρῷ λήμματι τὸν ∆ιδάσκαλον ἀπεμπολήσας ἑαυτῷ ἀγχόνην ἐπραγματεύσατο. Τοῦτο οὖν γνωστόν σοι ἔστω, ἀδελφέ, ὅτι οὐχ ὁ καλῶς ἀρχόμενος, οὗτος τέλειος, ἀλλ’ ὁ καλῶς ἀποτιθέμενος οὗτος, δόκιμος παρὰ Θεῷ. «Μὴ οὖν δῷς ὕπνον τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ἀδελφέ, μηδὲ νυσταγμὸν σοῖς βλεφάροις», ἵνα «σωθῇς ὥσπερ δορκὰς ἐκ βρόχων καὶ ὥσπερ ὄρνεον ἐκ παγίδος.» Βλέπε γὰρ ὅτι ἐν μέσῳ παγίδων διαβαίνεις καὶ ἐπάνω τείχους ὑψηλοῦ περιπατεῖς ὅθεν οὐκ ἀκίνδυνον τῷ καταπεσόντι τὸ πτῶμα. Μὴ οὖν εὐθέως εἰς ἀκρότητα ἀσκήσεως ἐκτείνῃς σεαυτόν· μάλιστα μηδὲ θαρρήσῃς σεαυτῷ, ἵνα μὴ ἐξ ἀπειρίας ἀφ’ ὕψους τῆς ἀσκήσεως πέσῃς. Κρεῖσσον γὰρ ἡ κατ’ ὀλίγον προκοπή. Κατὰ μικρὸν οὖν κλέπτε τὰς ἡδονὰς τοῦ βίου ἐξαφανίζων σεαυτοῦ πᾶσαν συνήθειαν, μήποτε ἀθρόως πάσας ὁμοῦ ἐρεθίσας τὰς ἡδονὰς ὄχλον πειρασμῶν σεαυτῷ ἐπαγάγῃς. Ἡνίκα δ’ ἂν τοῦ ἑνὸς πάθους τῆς ἡδονῆς κατὰ κράτος περιγένῃ, πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν ἡδονὴν παράταξαι καὶ οὕτω πασῶν τῶν ἡδονῶν εὐκαίρως περιγενήσῃ. Ἡδονῆς γὰρ ὄνομα μὲν ἕν, πράγματα δὲ διάφορα. Τοίνυν, ἀδελφέ, ἔσο πρῶτον μὲν ὑπομονητικὸς πρὸς πάντα πειρασμόν. Πειρασμοῖς δὲ ποταποῖς δοκιμάζεται ὁ πιστός, ζημίαις κοσμικαῖς, ἐγκλήμασι, καταψεύσμασιν, ἀπειθείαις, καταλαλιαῖς, διωγμοῖς; Εἰς ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα δοκιμάζεται ὁ πιστός. Ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ ἡσύχιος ἔσο, μὴ προπετὴς ἐν λόγῳ, μὴ ἐριστικός, μὴ φιλόνεικος, μὴ κενόδοξος, μὴ ἐξηγητικός, ἀλλὰ φιλόπιστος· μὴ ἐν λόγῳ πολύς, ἕτοιμος δὲ ἴσθι ἀεί, μὴ πρὸς διδασκαλίαν. ἀλλὰ πρὸς μάθησιν. Μὴ περιεργάζου βίους κοσμικοὺς ὅθεν οὐδέν σοι προσγίνεται ὄφελος. Φησὶ γάρ· «Ὅπως ἂν μὴ λαλήσῃ τὸ στόμα μου τὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων». Ὁ γὰρ ἡδέως λαλῶν τὰ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἑτοίμως καθ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐξυπνίζει τὰς ἡδονάς. Μᾶλλον δὲ πολυπραγμόνει τὸν τῶν δικαίων βίον· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν εὑρή σεις ἑαυτῷ ὄφελος. Μὴ ἔσο φιλενδείκτης περιάγων τὰς κώμας ἢ τὰς οἰκίας, φεῦγε δὲ ταύτας ὡς ψυχῶν παγίδας. Εἰ δέ τις διὰ πολλὴν εὐλάβειαν προτρέπεταί σε εἰς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ οἶκον πολλῶν προφάσεων ἕνεκα, μανθανέτω ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀκολουθεῖν τῇ πίστει τοῦ ἑκατοντάρχου ὅς, τοῦ Ἰησοῦ θεραπείας χάριν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐπειγομένου, παρῃτή σατο λέγων· «Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς, ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγον καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.» Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ εἰπόντος αὐτῷ· «Ὕπαγε, ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι», ἰάθη ὁ παῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης. Τοῦτο οὖν γνωστόν σοι ἔστω, ἀδελφέ, ὅτι οὐχ ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσία, ἀλλ’ ἡ πίστις τοῦ αἰτοῦντος ἠλευθέρωσε τὸν κάμνοντα. Οὕτω καὶ νῦν, σοῦ εὐχομένου ἐν ᾧ ᾖς τόπῳ καὶ τοῦ κάμνοντος πιστεύοντος ὅτι ταῖς σαῖς εὐχαῖς βοηθηθήσεται, ἀποβήσεται αὐτῷ πάντα καταθυμίως. 2. Vain then is the labour of the righteous man, and free from blame is the way of the sinner, if a change befall, and the former turn from the better to the worse, and the latter from the worse to the better. So we hear from Ezekiel teaching as it were in the name of the Lord, when he says, if the righteous turns away and commits iniquity, I will not remember the righteousness which he committed before; in his sin he shall die, and so too about the sinner; if he turn away from his wickedness, and do that which is right, he shall live. Where were all the labours of God’s servant Moses, when the gainsaying of one moment shut him out from entering into the promised land? What became of the companionship of Gehazi with Elissæus, when he brought leprosy on himself by his covetousness? What availed all Solomon’s vast wisdom, and his previous regard for God, when afterwards from his mad love of women he fell into idolatry? Not even the blessed David was blameless, when his thoughts went astray and he sinned against the wife of Uriah. One example were surely enough for keeping safe one who is living a godly life, the fall from the better to the worse of Judas, who, after being so long Christ’s disciple, for a mean gain sold his Master and got a halter for himself. Learn then, brother, that it is not he who begins well who is perfect. It is he who ends well who is approved in God’s sight. Give then no sleep to your eyes or slumber to your eyelids that you may be delivered as a roe from the net and a bird from the snare. For, behold, you are passing through the midst of snares; you are treading on the top of a high wall whence a fall is perilous to the faller; wherefore do not straightway attempt extreme discipline; above all things beware of confidence in yourself, lest you fall from a height of discipline through want of training. It is better to advance a little at a time. Withdraw then by degrees from the pleasures of life, gradually destroying all your wonted habits, lest you bring on yourself a crowd of temptations by irritating all your passions at once. When you have mastered one passion, then begin to wage war against another, and in this manner you will in good time get the better of all. Indulgence, so far as the name goes, is one, but its practical workings are diverse. First then, brother, meet every temptation with patient endurance. And by what various temptations the faithful man is proved; by worldly loss, by accusations, by lies, by opposition, by calumny, by persecution! These and the like are the tests of the faithful. Further, be quiet, not rash in speech, not quarrelsome, not disputatious, not covetous of vain glory, not more anxious to get than to give knowledge, not a man of many words, but always more ready to learn than to teach. Do not trouble yourself about worldly life; from it no good can come to you. It is said, That my mouth speak not the works of men. The man who is fond of talking about sinners’ doings, soon rouses the desire for self indulgence; much better busy yourself about the lives of good men for so you will get some profit for yourself. Do not be anxious to go travelling about from village to village and house to house; rather avoid them as traps for souls. If any one, for true pity’s sake, invite you with many pleas to enter his house, let him be told to follow the faith of the centurion, who, when Jesus was hastening to him to perform an act of healing, besought him not to do so in the words, “Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but speak the word only and my servant shall be healed” (Mt 8:8), and when Jesus had said to him “Go your way; as you have believed, so be it done unto you” (Mt 8:13), his servant was healed from that hour. Learn then, brother, that it was the faith of the suppliant, not the presence of Christ, which delivered the sick man. So too now, if you pray, in whatever place you be, and the sick man believes that he will be aided by your prayers, all will fall out as he desires.
42.3 Πλέον δὲ τοῦ Κυρίου τοὺς οἰκείους σου μὴ ἀγαπήσεις. «Ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν, φησί, πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστι μου ἄξιος.» Τί δὲ βούλεται ἡ τοῦ Κυρίου ἐντολή; «Εἴ τις, φησίν, οὐκ αἴρει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ μοι, οὐ δύναταί μου εἶναι μαθητής.» Εἰ συναπέθανες τῷ Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν συγγενῶν σου τῶν κατὰ σάρκα τί πάλιν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀναστρέφεσθαι θέλεις; Εἰ δὲ ἃ κατέλυ σας διὰ Χριστὸν πάλιν ταῦτα οἰκοδομεῖς διὰ τοὺς συγγε νεῖς σου, παραβάτην σεαυτὸν καθιστᾷς. Μὴ οὖν διὰ χρέος τῶν συγγενῶν σου ἀναχωρήσῃς τοῦ τόπου σου· ἀναχωρῶν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ τόπου σου ἴσως ἀναχωρήσεις ἐκ τοῦ τρόπου σου. Μὴ ἔσο ὀχλοχαρής, μὴ φιλόχωρος, μὴ φιλοπολίτης, ἀλλὰ φιλέρημος, ἐφ’ ἑαυτῷ μένων ἀεὶ ἀμετεωρίστως τὴν εὐχὴν καὶ τὴν ψαλμῳδίαν ἔργον ἡγούμενος. Μηδὲ τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων κατολιγωρήσῃς, μάλιστα τῆς νέας ∆ιαθήκης, διὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς παλαιᾶς ∆ιαθήκης πολλάκις βλάβην ἐγγίνεσθαι, καὶ οὐχ ὅτι ἐγράφη βλαβερά, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἡ τῶν βλαπτομένων διάνοια ἀσθενής. Πᾶς γὰρ ἄρτος τρόφιμος, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀσθενοῦσιν ἐπιβλαβής. Οὕτως οὖν «πᾶσα Γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος», καὶ οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι’ αὐτῆς, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ κοινὸν εἶναι ἐκείνῳ κοινόν. «Πάντα δὲ δοκίμαζε, τὸ καλὸν κάτεχε, ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχου.» «Πάντα γὰρ ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει.» Ἔσο οὖν τοῖς συντυγχάνουσί σοι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀπρόσκοπος, προσχαρής, φιλάδελφος, ἡδύς, ταπεινόφρων, μὴ ἐκπίπτων τοῦ σκοποῦ τῆς φιλοξενίας διὰ βρωμάτων πολυτελείας, ἀρκούμενος δὲ τοῖς παροῦσι, τῆς καθημερινῆς χρείας τοῦ μονήρους βίου μηδὲν πλέον ἀπό τινος λάβῃς· καὶ μάλιστα φύγε τὸν χρυσὸν ὡς ψυχῆς ἐπίβουλον καὶ ἁμαρτίας πατέρα, ὑπουργὸν δὲ τοῦ διαβόλου. Μὴ προφάσει τῆς εἰς τοὺς πένητας διακονίας σεαυτὸν ὑπό δικον φιλοχρηματίας καταστήσῃς. Εἰ δέ τις πτωχῶν ἕνεκα κομίσει σοι χρήματα, γνῶς δέ τινας λειπομένους, αὐτῷ ἐκείνῳ ᾧ ὑπάρχει τὰ χρήματα ἀποκομίσαι τοῖς ὑστε ρουμένοις ἀδελφοῖς συμβούλευσον, μήποτε μολύνῃ σου τὴν συνείδησιν ἡ τῶν χρημάτων ὑποδοχή. 3. You will not love your kinsfolk more than the Lord. He that loves, He says, father, or mother, or brother, more than me, is not worthy of me. What is the meaning of the Lord’s commandment? He that takes not up his cross and follows after me, cannot be my disciple? If, together with Christ, you died to your kinsfolk according to the flesh, why do you wish to live with them again? If for your kinsfolk’s sake you are building up again what you destroyed for Christ’s sake, you make yourself a transgressor. Do not then for your kinsfolk’s sake abandon your place: if you abandon your place, perhaps you will abandon your mode of life. Love not the crowd, nor the country, nor the town; love the desert, ever abiding by yourself with no wandering mind, regarding prayer and praise as your life’s work. Never neglect reading, especially of the New Testament, because very frequently mischief comes of reading the Old; not because what is written is harmful, but because the minds of the injured are weak. All bread is nutritious, but it may be injurious to the sick. Just so all Scripture is God inspired and profitable, and there is nothing in it unclean: only to him who thinks it is unclean, to him it is unclean. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. “All things are lawful but all things are not expedient” (1 Cor 6:12). Among all, with whom you come in contact, be in all things a giver of no offense, cheerful, loving as a brother (1 Peter 3:8), pleasant, humble-minded, never missing the mark of hospitality through extravagance of meats, but always content with what is at hand. Take no more from any one than the daily necessaries of the solitary life. Above all things shun gold as the soul’s foe, the father of sin and the agent of the devil. Do not expose yourself to the charge of covetousness on the pretence of ministering to the poor; but, if any one brings you money for the poor and you know of any who are in need, advise the owner himself to convey it to his needy brothers, lest haply your conscience may be defiled by the acceptance of money.
42.4 Τὰς ἡδονὰς φεῦγε, τὴν ἐγκράτειαν δίωκε, καὶ τὸ μὲν σῶμα τοῖς πόνοις ἄσκει, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν τοῖς πειρασμοῖς ἔθιζε. Τὴν σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς ἀνάλυσιν ἀπαλλαγὴν παντὸς κακοῦ τιθέμενος ἐκδέχου τῶν αἰωνίων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν ἧς πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μέτοχοι γεγόνασι. Σὺ δὲ ἀδιαλείπτως ζυγοστατῶν ἀντιπαρατίθεσο τῇ διαβολικῇ ἐννοίᾳ τὸν εὐσεβῆ λογισμόν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τρυτάνης τῇ ῥοπῇ τῆς πλάστιγγος τούτῳ παραχωρῶν. Καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν ἐπαναστᾶσα ἡ πονηρὰ ἔννοια λέγῃ· «Τί σοι τὸ ὄφελος τῆς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ διαγωγῆς; Τί σοι τὸ κέρδος τῆς ἀναχωρή σεως τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων συνηθείας; Ἢ οὐκ ἔγνως τοὺς παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τεταγμένους ἐπισκόπους τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησιῶν τοῖς ἀνδράσι συνήθως συνδιαζῶντας καὶ τὰς πνευματικὰς ἀδιαλείπτως ἐπιτελοῦντας πανηγύρεις ἐν αἷς μάλιστά που τοῖς παραγενομένοις γίνεται ὄφελος; Ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἀποκαλύψεις παροιμιακῶν αἰνιγμάτων, λύσεις ἀποστολικῶν διδαγμάτων, εὐαγγελικῶν νοημάτων ἔκθεσις, θεολογίας ἀκρόασις, ἀδελφῶν πνευματικῶν συντυχίαι μεγάλην τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν ἐκ τῆς θέας τοῦ προσώπου τὴν ὠφέλειαν παρεχόντων. Σὺ δὲ τοσούτων ἀγαθῶν ἀλλό τριον σεαυτὸν καταστήσας κάθησαι ἐνθάδε ἐξηγριωμένος ἴσως τοῖς θηρσίν. Ὁρᾷς γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἠρεμίαν πολλήν, ἀπανθρωπίαν οὐκ ὀλίγην, ἀπορίαν διδασκαλίας, ἀδελφῶν ἀλλοτρίωσιν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα περὶ τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀργίαν ἔχον πολλήν.» Ὅταν οὖν τοιαύταις καὶ τοσαύταις εὐλογοφανέσι προφάσεσιν ἐπαναστᾶσα ἡ πονηρὰ ἔννοια καταρρῆξαί σε θέλῃ, ἀντιπαράθες αὐτῇ διὰ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς λογισμοῦ τὴν πεῖραν τοῦ πράγματος λέγων· «Ἐπειδὴ σὺ λέγεις μοι καλὰ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἶναι, διὰ τοῦτο ἐγὼ ἐνταῦθα μετῴκησα ἀνάξιον ἐμαυτὸν κρίνας τῶν τοῦ κόσμου καλῶν. Παραμέμικται γὰρ τοῖς τοῦ κόσμου καλοῖς τὰ κακά, καὶ μᾶλλον ὑπεραίρει τὰ κακά. Παραγενόμενος γάρ ποτε ἐν ταῖς πνευματικαῖς πανηγύρεσιν ἑνὶ μὲν ἀδελφῷ μόλις ποτὲ περιέτυχον, τὸ μὲν δοκεῖν, φοβουμένῳ τὸν Κύριον, κρατουμένῳ δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου, καὶ ἤκουσα παρ’ αὐτοῦ λόγους κομψοὺς καὶ μύθους πεπλασμένους εἰς ἀπάτην τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων. Πολλοῖς δὲ μετ’ αὐτὸν συνέτυχον κλέπταις, ἅρπαξι, τυράννοις. Εἶδον μεθυόντων σχῆμα ἄσχημον, τὰ αἵματα τῶν καταπονουμένων. Εἶδον δὲ καὶ κάλλος γυναικῶν βασανίζον μου τὴν σωφροσύνην. Καὶ τὸ μὲν τῆς πορνείας ἔργον διέφυγον, τὴν δὲ ἐμαυτοῦ παρθενίαν ἐμόλυνα κατὰ διάνοιαν καρδίας. Καὶ πολλῶν μὲν ἀκήκοα λόγων ψυχωφελῶν· πλὴν παρ’ οὐδενὶ τῶν διδασκά λων εὗρον ἀξίαν τῶν λόγων τὴν ἀρετήν. Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο πάλιν μυρίων ἤκουσα τραγῳδημάτων μέλεσι τεθρυμμένοις ἐνδεδυμένων. Πάλιν ἀκήκοα κιθάρας ἡδὺ ἠχούσης, τῶν κρότων τῶν ἁλλομένων, τῆς φωνῆς τῶν γελοιαστῶν, μωρίας πολλῆς καὶ εὐτραπελίας, ὄχλου ἀμυθήτου βοῆς. Εἶδον τὰ δάκρυα τῶν συληθέντων, τὰς ὀδύνας τῶν ἀπαγομένων ὑπὸ τῆς τυραννίδος, τὴν οἰμωγὴν τῶν βασανιζομένων. Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐκ ἦν πανήγυρις πνευματική, ἀλλὰ θάλασσα ἀνεμιζομένη καὶ ταραττομένη πάντας ὁμοῦ τοῖς αὐτῆς κύμασι καλύψαι σπουδάζουσα. Λέγε μοι, ὦ κακὴ ἔννοια, καὶ ὁ τῆς προσκαίρου ἡδυπαθείας τε καὶ κενοδοξίας δαίμων, τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος τῆς τούτων θεωρίας τε καὶ ἀκροάσεως, μηδενὶ τῶν ἀδικουμένων βοηθῆσαι ἰσχύοντι, μήτε δὲ τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις ἐπαμῦναι, μήτε τοὺς σφαλλομένους διορθώσασθαι συγχωρουμένῳ, τάχα δὲ μέλλοντι καὶ ἐμαυτὸν προσαπολλύειν; Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὀλίγον ὕδωρ καθαρὸν ὑπὸ πολλῆς ζάλης ἀνέμου καὶ κονιορτοῦ ἀφανίζεται, οὕτως ἃ νομίζομεν καλὰ ἐν τῷ βίῳ ποιεῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν κακῶν καλύπτεται. Αἱ μὲν γὰρ τραγῳδίαι ὥσπερ σκόλοπες τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον δι’ εὐθυμίας καὶ χαρᾶς ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν ἐμπήσσονται, ἵνα τῆς ψαλμῳδίας ἐπισκοτίσῃ τὸ καθαρόν. Αἱ δὲ οἰμωγαὶ καὶ ὁ ὀδυρμὸς τῶν ἀδικουμένων ἀνθρώπων παρὰ τῶν ὁμοφύλων ἐπάγονται, ἵνα δειχθῇ τῶν πενήτων ἡ ὑπομονή. 4. Shun pleasures; seek after continence; train your body to hard work; accustom your soul to trials. Regarding the dissolution of soul and body as release from every evil, await that enjoyment of everlasting good things in which all the saints have part. Ever, as it were, holding the balance against every suggestion of the devil throw in a holy thought, and, as the scale inclines do thou go with it. Above all when the evil thought starts up and says, What is the good of your passing your life in this place? What do you gain by withdrawing yourself from the society of men? Do you not know that those, who are ordained by God to be bishops of God’s churches, constantly associate with their fellows, and indefatigably attend spiritual gatherings at which those who are present derive very great advantage? There are to be enjoyed explanations of hard sayings, expositions of the teachings of the apostles, interpretations of the thoughts of the gospels, lessons in theology and the intercourse of spiritual brethren, who do great good to all they meet if only by the sight of their faces. You, however, who have decided to be a stranger to all these good things, are sitting here in a wild state like the beasts. You see round you a wide desert with scarcely a fellow creature in it, lack of all instruction, estrangement from your brothers, and your spirit inactive in carrying out the commandments of God. Now, when the evil thought rises against you, with all these ingenious pretexts and wishes to destroy you, oppose to it in pious reflection your own practical experience, and say, You tell me that the things in the world are good; the reason why I came here is because I judged myself unfit for the good things of the world. With the world’s good things are mingled evil things, and the evil things distinctly have the upper hand. Once when I attended the spiritual assemblies I did with difficulty find one brother, who, so far as I could see, feared God, but he was a victim of the devil, and I heard from him amusing stories and tales made up to deceive those whom he met. After him I fell in with many thieves, plunderers, tyrants. I saw disgraceful drunkards; I saw the blood of the oppressed; I saw women’s beauty, which tortured my chastity. From actual fornication I fled, but I defiled my virginity by the thoughts of my heart. I heard many discourses which were good for the soul, but I could not discover in the case of any one of the teachers that his life was worthy of his words. After this, again, I heard a great number of plays, which were made attractive by wanton songs. Then I heard a lyre sweetly played, the applause of tumblers, the talk of clowns, all kinds of jests and follies and all the noises of a crowd. I saw the tears of the robbed, the agony of the victims of tyranny, the shrieks of the tortured. I looked and lo, there was no spiritual assembly, but only a sea, wind-tossed and agitated, and trying to drown every one at once under its waves. Tell me, O evil thought, tell me, dæmon of short lived pleasure and vain glory, what is the good of my seeing and hearing all these things, when I am powerless to succour any of those who are thus wronged; when I am allowed neither to defend the helpless nor correct the fallen; when I am perhaps doomed to destroy myself too. For just as a very little fresh water is blown away by a storm of wind and dust, in like manner the good deeds, that we think we do in this life, are overwhelmed by the multitude of evils. Pieces acted for men in this life are driven through joy and merriment, like stakes into their hearts, so that the brightness of their worship is be-dimmed. But the wails and lamentations of men wronged by their fellows are introduced to make a show of the patience of the poor.
42.5 Τίς οὖν ὠφέλεια ἐμοὶ ἢ δηλονότι τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ βλάβη; ∆ιὰ τοῦτο οὖν ἐγὼ μεταναστεύω ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη ὡς στρουθίον. Ὡς στρουθίον γὰρ ἐρρύσθην ἐκ τῆς παγίδος τῶν θηρευόντων. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἐρήμῳ διάγω, ὦ κακὴ ἔννοια, ἐν ᾗ ὁ Κύριος διέτριβεν. Ἐνταῦθα ἡ δρῦς ἡ Μαμβρή, ἐνταῦθα ἡ οὐρανοφόρος κλίμαξ καὶ αἱ τῶν ἀγγέλων παρεμβολαὶ αἱ τῷ Ἰακὼβ ὀφθεῖσαι, ἐνταῦθα ἡ ἔρημος ἐν ᾗ ὁ λαὸς ἁγνισθεὶς ἐνομοθετήθη καὶ οὕτως εἰς τὴν γῆν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας εἰσελθὼν εἶδε Θεόν. Ἐνταῦθα τὸ ὄρος τὸ Καρμήλιον ἐν ᾧ Ἠλίας αὐλιζόμενος τῷ Θεῷ εὐηρέστησεν. Ἐνταῦθα τὸ πεδίον ἐν ᾧ ἀναχωρήσας Ἔσδρας πάσας τὰς θεοπνεύστους βίβλους προστάγματι Θεοῦ ἐξηρεύξατο. Ἐνταῦθα ἡ ἔρημος ἐν ᾗ ὁ μακάριος Ἰωάννης ἀκριδοφαγῶν μετάνοιαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐκήρυξεν. Ἐνταῦθα τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν εἰς ὃ ὁ Χριστὸς ἀνερχόμενος προσηύχετο ἡμᾶς διδάσκων προσεύχεσθαι. Ἐνταῦθα ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ τῆς ἐρήμου φίλος. Φησὶ γάρ· «Ὅπου εἰσὶ δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, ἐκεῖ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν.» Ἐνταῦθα ἡ στενὴ καὶ τεθλιμμένη ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν. Ἐνταῦθα διδάσκαλοι καὶ προφῆ ται, οἱ ἐν ἐρημίαις πλανώμενοι καὶ ὄρεσι καὶ σπηλαίοις καὶ ταῖς ὀπαῖς τῆς γῆς. Ἐνταῦθα ἀπόστολοι καὶ εὐαγγε λισταὶ καὶ ὁ τῶν μοναχῶν ἐρημοπολίτης βίος. Ταῦτα τοίνυν ἑκουσίως καταδέδεγμαι, ἵνα λάβω ἅπερ τοῖς μάρτυσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσιν ἁγίοις ἐπήγγελται, ἵνα ἀψευδῶς λέγω· «∆ιὰ τοὺς λόγους τῶν χειλέων σου ἐγὼ ἐφύλαξα ὁδοὺς σκληράς.» Ἔγνων γὰρ τὸν μὲν θεοφιλῆ Ἀβραὰμ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ φωνῇ πειθόμενον καὶ εἰς τὴν ἔρημον μετοικοῦντα, καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καταδυναστευόμενον, καὶ Ἰακὼβ τὸν πατριάρχην ξενιτεύοντα, Ἰωσὴφ τὸν σώφρονα διαπι πρασκόμενον, τοὺς τῆς ἐγκρατείας εὑρετὰς τρεῖς παῖδας πυρομαχοῦντας, ∆ανιὴλ δεύτερον εἰς λάκκον λεόντων παραβαλλόμενον, τὸν παρρησιαστὴν Ἱερεμίαν εἰς λάκκον βορβόρου καταδικαζόμενον, Ἡσαίαν τὸν τῶν ἀποκρύφων θεατὴν πριζόμενον, τὸν Ἰσραὴλ αἰχμαλωτιζόμενον, Ἰωάννην τὸν τῆς μοιχείας ἔλεγχον ἀποτεμνόμενον, ἀναιρουμένους τοὺς Χριστοῦ μάρτυρας. Καὶ ἵνα τί μακρολογῶ, ὅπου γε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα τῷ ἑαυ τοῦ θανάτῳ ἡμᾶς ζωοποιήσῃ καὶ πάντας ἡμᾶς πρὸς τὴν ὑπομονὴν ἀλείψῃ καὶ ἑλκύσῃ; Πρὸς τοῦτον ἐπείγομαι καὶ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον. Γνήσιος εὑρε θῆναι ἀγωνίζομαι, ἀνάξιον ἐμαυτὸν κρίνας τῶν τοῦ κόσμου καλῶν. Πλὴν ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἐγὼ διὰ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ’ ὁ κόσμος δι’ ἐμέ.» Ταῦτα οὖν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιλογιζόμενος καὶ τελῶν αὐτὰ σπουδαίως κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον σοι, ἀγώνισαι ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας ἕως θανάτου. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς ὑπήκοος γέγονε μέχρι θανάτου. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Ἀπόστολός φησι· «Βλέπετε μήποτε ἔσται ἔν τινι ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ εἰς τὸ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ζῶντος, ἀλλὰ ἀλλήλους παρακαλεῖτε καὶ εἷς τὸν ἕνα οἰκοδομεῖτε ἄχρις οὗ τὸ σήμερον λέγεται.» Τὸ γὰρ σήμερον σημαίνει ὅλον τὸν χρόνον τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν. Οὕτως οὖν πολιτευόμενος, ἀδελφέ, καὶ σεαυτὸν σώσεις καὶ ἡμᾶς εὐφρανεῖς καὶ τὸν Θεὸν δοξάσεις εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 5. What good then do I get except the loss of my soul? For this reason I migrate to the hills like a bird. I am escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers. I am living, O evil thought, in the desert in which the Lord lived. Here is the oak of Mamre; here is the ladder going up to heaven, and the stronghold of the angels which Jacob saw; here is the wilderness in which the people purified received the law, and so came into the land of promise and saw God. Here is Mount Carmel where Elias sojourned and pleased God. Here is the plain whither Esdras withdrew, and at God’s bidding uttered all the God inspired books. Here is the wilderness in which the blessed John ate locusts and preached repentance to men. Here is the Mount of Olives, whither Christ came and prayed, and taught us to pray. Here is Christ the lover of the wilderness, for He says “Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them. Here is the strait and narrow way which leads unto life (Mt 7:14). Here are the teachers and prophets “wandering in deserts and in mountains and in dens and caves of the earth” (Heb 11:38). Here are apostles and evangelists and solitaries’ life remote from cities. This I have embraced with all my heart, that I may win what has been promised to Christ’s martyrs and all His other saints, and so I may truly say, Because of the words of your lips I have kept hard ways. I have heard of Abraham, God’s friend, who obeyed the divine voice and went into the wilderness; of Isaac who submitted to authority; of Jacob, the patriarch, who left his home; of Joseph, the chaste, who was sold; of the three children, who learned how to fast, and fought with the fire; of Daniel thrown twice into the lion’s den; of Jeremiah speaking boldly, and thrown into a pit of mud; of Isaiah, who saw unspeakable things, cut asunder with a saw; of Israel led away captive; of John the rebuker of adultery, beheaded; of Christ’s martyrs slain. But why say more? Here our Saviour Himself was crucified for our sakes that by His death He might give us life, and train and attract us all to endurance. To Him I press on, and to the Father and to the Holy Ghost. I strive to be found true, judging myself unworthy of this world’s goods. And yet not I because of the world, but the world because of me. Think of all these things in your heart; follow them with zeal; fight, as you have been commanded, for the truth to the death. For Christ was made obedient even unto death (Phil 2:8). The Apostle says, “Take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart…in departing from the living God. But exhort one another…(and edify one another [1 Thess 5:11]) while it is called today” (Heb 3:12-13). Today means the whole time of our life. Thus living, brother, you will save yourself, you will make me glad, and you will glorify God from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.

Because I am trying to put together an article on Bekkos and George Moschabar, I have of late been reading Martin Jugie again; he seems to have read virtually everything in Byzantine theological literature. In particular, he has a lot of information, and very definite opinions, on the issue of how far Byzantine writers understood there to be an indwelling of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit in the souls of the just; this is an issue on which John Bekkos and George Moschabar were entirely opposed. Specifically, Bekkos sees it as the clear consensus of Scripture and the Fathers that the Holy Spirit himself — i.e., the person or hypostasis — is given by Christ to the faithful, and he sees this giving as implying something about the eternal, inner-trinitarian relationships of these two persons; Moschabar, by contrast, sees Scripture to use the term “Holy Spirit” in an ambiguous way, sometimes referring to the third person of the Trinity, sometimes to that person’s gift of grace — or, to put it differently, to an “energy” — and he lays it down as a kind of exegetical first principle that, whenever Holy Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit being given or sent or flowing forth from the Son, the “Holy Spirit” referred to is an energy, not the person. In teaching this, I think that Moschabar anticipated, in important ways, the doctrine of Gregory Palamas; in fact, it seems quite likely to me that Palamas was directly influenced by Moschabar’s writings.

Jugie is not an ecumenically sensitive writer; he is a Catholic apologist of the old school, and his references to Orthodox Christians as “Graeco-Russians” are bound to be offensive. Nevertheless, he is a clear thinker, and he backs up his assertions with evidence. As such, his historical judgments deserve serious consideration; it is for this reason that I present him here in English. I do not want to claim that Jugie is giving here a balanced, complete assessment of Orthodox spiritual tradition. But it does seem to me that some of the most important Orthodox writers of the past century, in particular the late Fr. John Meyendorff, were engaged in a tacit debate with Jugie over the significance of St. Gregory Palamas and his theology; if one reads Meyendorff as replying to Jugie, I think it opens one’s eyes as to what is at stake.

I would only add that what is given below is not a complete translation of Jugie’s chapter; I break off at the point where Jugie begins treating of more recent Orthodox writers.

Translated from Martin Jugie, A.A., Theologia Dogmatica Christanorum Orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica Dissidentium, Tomus II (Paris 1933), pp. 233-242.


Article 3: On the notion of divine mission and of the relation between eternal procession and temporal mission

The doctrine of the Graeco-Russians on divine missions differs from the doctrine held in common among Catholic theologians in no small way. First of all, among dissident theologians you will not find the subtle distinctions and accurate definitions that are found among ours; for example, they do not clearly distinguish between visible mission and invisible mission; the aim or scope of the missions is not discerned by them with precision. All of their speculation concerning the nature of the missions has had a polemical origin — as though, when they take up the question of divine missions, they had almost solely this end in view, to weaken the force of the argument based upon missions which Catholic theologians employ to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds and has existence from the Son. In this, Photius himself was their predecessor, not in fact in those writings where his explicit purpose is to treat of the procession of the Holy Spirit, but in his Amphilochian questions nos. 159 and 188, where he seeks to overturn the grounds of the Latins’ argument by teaching that each person of the Trinity, not excepting the Father, both sends the others and by the others is sent, indiscriminately. To establish this point, he appeals to certain texts of Scripture: Isa 48:16, “And now the Lord, and his Spirit, has sent me”; Isa 61 and Luke 4:18, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me … he has sent me to preach the good news to the poor.” After him, Byzantine theologians commonly held the same view on persons sent and sending, relying upon the same scriptural texts; nor do most of the moderns veer from this position.

Gravely, therefore, do the Graeco-Russians adulterate the notion of mission, insofar as they deny that mission implies a necessary connection with procession ad intra, that it imitates, manifests, and, as it were, reproduces this ad extra. They indeed commonly distinguish a double procession, one kind ad intra, which is from eternity, from which the divine persons are constituted in their hypostatic being; the other kind ad extra, which they call temporal, which is mission itself. The temporal procession is common to the three persons. The terminus ad quem of this procession is that temporal effect produced in creatures, which indeed is common to the three persons, as is any operation ad extra. But as for the terminus a quo, temporal procession or mission signifies a simple external manifestation of the person sent from the person sending. This external manifestation bears no necessary relation to a procession ad intra; it is something altogether accidental and extrinsic, pertaining to the historical order.

Moreover, as regards the form itself of this external manifestation, they do not agree among themselves. Does such a manifestation include a real bestowal of the person sent, made by the person sending to the creature, such that, beyond the gift of grace conferred upon the justified creature, there would be also a communication of an uncreated gift, that is, of a divine person himself, who in a new manner and on new terms would begin to exist within the creature? To this question they do not give one unanimous response. Before the Palamite controversy, most, not all, taught that, in mission, an actual divine person is communicated to the creature. After this controversy, most, not all, have held that a divine person is by no means given or communicated, and they have seen in mission nothing else than an operation common to the three persons, by which grace is communicated to the creature, grace which, according to the system of Palamas expounded above, is pronounced to be uncreated, and is regarded as a sort of eternal and uncreated outpouring from the divine essence. This very operation [or: energy] is a manifestation of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and not just of the person sent or the person sending.

The earliest polemical writers after Photius and Michael Cerularius had no more common pastime than to reproach the Latins with confusing the eternal procession with a temporal procession or mission; nevertheless, most of them did not deny what the Greek fathers teach so plainly, namely, that in mission, besides grace and gifts, an actual divine person is communicated to human beings. See in volume one of this work the words of Nicetas the philosopher (pp. 291-292), Euthymius the patriarch (p. 298), the author of the tract Against the Franks (p. 300), Michael Psellus (p. 303), and especially Theophylact, who properly distinguishes between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit’s very person. For, in order to overthrow the argument of the Latins that is based upon Christ’s breathing upon his disciples after the resurrection, he wrote the following:

He breathes upon them, then, and gives them the Holy Spirit, not now granting them the perfect gift of the Holy Spirit (for this he was going to give at Pentecost), but rendering them suitable for receiving that Spirit … But after the ascension, when the Spirit himself had descended, and had bestowed upon them the power of miracles and other gifts …. If then he gave the disciples the Spirit when he breathed upon them, how was it that he later said to them, “You will receive power from the Holy Spirit, who will come upon you not many days hence”; or why is it that we believe that, at Pentecost, the Spirit is made to descend, if in fact he gave him on the evening of the day of the resurrection?

[Comment. in Joannem, xx, 19-23, PG 124, 297; Epist. ad Nicolaum, 4, PG 126, 228; In Joan., c. iii, 32-34, PG 123, 1224. Cf. tom. I, pp. 306-307, 309-310.]

During the twelfth century, many polemical writers repeated Theophylact’s words. Thus, for example, Eustratius of Nicaea, Nicholas of Methone, Nicetas of Nicomedia, Michael Glykas; in the thirteenth century, Germanus II. Mystical writers frequently say the same thing concerning the bestowal of the person of the Holy Spirit and the dwelling of the divine persons in the soul of the just, among whom should be mentioned Symeon the New Theologian, who not only teaches that the soul of a holy person is a temple of the Holy Spirit, but, in addition, contends that the soul necessarily is aware of this indwelling, and that it is impossible for anyone to have the persons of the Trinity within himself without intimately experiencing their presence.

Nevertheless, certain polemical writers, even before Palamas, begin already to deny that the person of the Holy Spirit is really given to the soul of the just according to that special mode which accompanies an infusion of charity and grace. If one were to believe them, it is not a divine person, but solely the person’s gifts, which are communicated, and they interpret the term “Spirit,” in those passages of Scripture or of the Fathers which have to do with the sending, giving, and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to mean the spiritual gifts themselves. They support their opinion by the testimony of pseudo-Chrysostom who, in a certain discourse On the Holy Spirit, previously cited by Photius himself, says the following:

But if you should hear him say, “I will send you the Holy Spirit,” do not interpret this to mean the godhead: for God is not sent. These are names signifying operation, in that everyone who sends, sends to those places where he is not…. Therefore when he says, “I will send you the Holy Spirit,” he means the gift of the Spirit. And, so that you may learn that the gift is sent, but the Spirit is not sent, the Savior says to the apostles, “Remain in Jerusalem, until you are clothed with power from on high.” The scripture says, “God poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit.” It is not the godhead that is poured out, but the gift. For this reason, so that it might be demonstrated that that which is poured out is not the Holy Spirit, but the grace of the Spirit of God, David says to Christ, “Grace is poured out by your lips.” Grace is poured out, not he who bestows the grace. (PG 52, 825-826.)

In the twelfth century, these words are applauded by Andronicus Camaterus in his Ἱερᾷ Ὁπλοθήκῃ (Sacred Treasury), wherein he means to show that it is not the person of the Spirit but only his charisms that are bestowed upon men. As for Camaterus, John Bekkos refutes him by citing against him, at one time Christ the Savior’s clear words in the gospel, at another time testimonies from other Greek fathers, especially Cyril of Alexandria; the perspicuity of these testimonies is clearer than light. (John Bekkos, In Camateri animadversiones, PG 141, 419-428.) To this same question Bekkos devotes also his eighth Epigraph, which he prefaces with the following notice:

Since some people, when they hear that the Holy Spirit “exists” and “fountains” and “emanates” from the Son, give the strange account that it is not the divine nature of the Spirit which springs forth and fountains from the divine substance and nature of the Son, but rather the spiritual gift which comes to those who are worthy … because they take it that such a gift must be understood as something divided and disjoined from the Spirit’s divine substance, the following patristic citations have been gathered, from which one may apprehend … that it is the Holy Spirit himself, one of the Trinity and him who completes it and who is himself divine nature and perfect God, just like the Father and the Son, who is meant when one says that the Holy Spirit “emanates” and “fountains” and “exists” from the Son.

[PG 141, 673. If Philotheos Kokkinos is to be trusted (Contra Gregoram Antirrhet., vi, PG 151, 915-920), George the Cypriot, Patriarch of Constantinople, held the same opinion as Camaterus about the sending of the Holy Spirit — which however does not appear true from his published writings. Gregory was, nevertheless, in a certain respect the precursor of Palamas, by reason of his teaching concerning the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. See B. De Rubeis, Dissertatio I in Georgium Cyprium, PG 142, 109-110.]

Gregory Palamas and his disciples apply his teaching about a real distinction between God’s essence and his operation (= energy) to the divine missions in the following manner: Since the divine essence and the divine persons themselves are, of themselves, utterly inaccessible, imparticipable, and incommunicable, the mission of a divine person can be understood only of a common operation of the Trinity, in particular of that operation which has the name grace. Since then this operation, just like all the other operations of God, is something divine, uncreated, and eternal, really distinct, indeed, from the divine nature, but in fact truly inseparable from it, it follows that a mission can, in a certain way, be called an eternal procession (πρόοδον). However, an eternal procession of this kind, which is manifested in time, is solely according to operation, κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, not according to nature, κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, nor according to hypostases or persons, κατὰ τὰς ὑποστάσεις. It has creatures in view, it is ad extra; it does not have in view the persons nor the processions ad intra. Therefore differentiation has to be made between a two-fold eternal procession, one kind according to the subsisting of the persons in the divine essence, the other kind according to an operation of the essence which is common to the three divine persons. Where Scripture says that one person is sent by another, this in no way signifies that the person sent is communicated to the creature, that it indwells the creature in a special manner and on special terms — for this is altogether impossible. Such a mission indicates nothing other than an external and temporal manifestation of that eternal and uncreated operation which is called grace or the gifts of the Spirit, which is in fact common to the three persons, and is communicated to worthy souls, or rather, reaches to them, extends itself to them, like the light of some eternal sun which, at a certain moment in time, illuminates a new region, illuminates new things which earlier lay in darkness.

According to this speculation or conception, the following expressions of Scripture or of the Fathers — “the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son, is put forth, poured forth or shed forth by the Son, is from the Son, shines out from the Son,” etc. — signify in fact a certain eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but not one ordered to the Spirit’s personal existence. Such a procession occurs solely according to operation, κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ordered to the sanctification of the creature, or insofar as it is directed towards a terminus ad quem, it can even be said to be a temporal procession. In it is beheld, in truth, a certain showing and manifestation of the three Persons under an aspect whereby the persons are able to be manifested and known, namely by their eternal operation, which extends to the creatures and sanctifies them.

This is the genuine notion of divine mission in Palamite theology. Hear Palamas describing the mission of the Holy Spirit in his Confession of Faith:

The Spirit, subsisting in himself, proceeding from the Father and sent — that is, manifested — through the Son, himself also cause of all the creatures, as indeed it is in him that they have been brought to perfection, himself equal to the Father and the Son except in respect of unbegottenness and begottenness. He was sent by the Son to his disciples — that is, he was manifested. For in what other manner would he have been sent, since he was not separated from him? Or in what other way would he be able to draw near to me, since he is everywhere present? Wherefore he is sent, not only from the Son, but from the Father and through the Son; and he comes being manifested also from himself. For the sending, that is the manifesting, of the Spirit is a common work. But he is manifested, not according to essence (for no one ever has seen or declared God’s nature), but according to grace and power and operation (= energy), which is common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[PG 151, 766 A-B. Cf. the same author’s Homilia viii de fide, PG 151, 100 D.]

In his second treatise On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, against the Latins, he says these things:

The Son gives the Holy Spirit, but according to gift and grace and operation (= energy); he does not give the very person of the Holy Spirit, for this can be received by no one…. To be sent and to be given, when applied to God, means nothing else than to be manifested.

[Λόγος δεύτερος περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, Constantinople, 1627, pp. 54, 61: Δίδωσι Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν δωρεὰν καὶ τὴν χάριν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος· παρ᾽ οὐδενὸς γὰρ αὕτη λαμβάνεσθαι δύναται … Οὐδὲν ἄλλο τὸ πέμπεσθαί τε καὶ δίδοσθαι ἐπὶ Θεοῦ ἢ τὸ φανεροῦσθαι.]

Palamas’s genuine disciples hold the same doctrine. Philotheus Kokkinos expounds it at length in his Antirrheticus vi contra Nicephorum Gregoram (Gregoras, by contrast, teaches that the three persons of the Trinity indwell the soul of the just):

If the three divine hypostases, as you say, indwell every one of those who are worthy of God, then each one of those who are made deiform will possess in himself more than did that divine temple which for our sake, in a manner surpassing reason, the Only-begotten Son of God indwelled, insofar as that [temple] held in itself [only] one of the Trinity, united with it according to hypostasis.” (PG 151, 893 A.) … “The Spirit is participated in, not according to essence, nor according to hypostasis — for this is altogether foreign to theology — but according to the divine charisms and operations (energies)…. From all these things you have been taught that the Holy Spirit inhabits those who are worthy energetically, not hypostatically. That is, his energy, not his hypostasis, dwells in them, and makes them to be temples of God; and through the divine energy and grace they have dwelling in them the whole Spirit. For in each gift (charism) the whole Spirit, as working, is analogically present.” (PG 151, 901 C, 902 C.)

In his Tractatus contra Latinos, Macarius Ancyranus devotes four chapters to the present question; their titles sufficiently express the doctrine defended in them:

Ch. 76: That the Holy Spirit, poured out upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, was not the divine person himself, but his gift and grace and operation, which also is called “Holy Spirit.”

Ch. 77: That the Holy Spirit, a person of the Holy Trinity, is one thing, and his bestowal and grace and power and operation — or rather, the common bestowal and grace and power and operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — is another.

Ch. 78: Concerning the discrepancy which some people find in the prayers of Basil the Great which are read on the day of Pentecost, and that the Spirit poured out at Pentecost was not a person of the Trinity, but his gift and grace: for it is “divided.”

Ch. 79: Moreover, that the Holy Spirit, one person of the Most Holy Trinity, both is always identical with himself, and is invisible and incommunicable to others; and that, just as his gift and grace is called “Holy Spirit,” so also it is called “God,” whenever it is seen and divided and participated in by all.

[Κατὰ Λατίνων. In Dositheus, Τόμος καταλλαγῆς, pp. 132-139:
«Ὅτι τὸ κατὰ τὴν Πεντηκοστὴν ἐκχυθὲν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον εἰς τοὺς ἀποστόλους οὐκ αὐτὸ ἦν τὸ θεαρχικὸν πρόσωπον, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ δωρεὰ καὶ χάρις καὶ ἐνέργεια αὐτοῦ, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον καὶ αὐτὴ λεγομένη.
«Ὅτι ἄλλο Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ ἓν πρόσωπον τῆς Τριάδος, καὶ ἄλλο ἡ τούτου, μᾶλλον δὲ ἡ κοινὴ Πατρὸς, Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος δωρεὰ καὶ χάρις καὶ δύναμις καὶ ἐνέργεια.
«Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης τισὶ διαφωνίας ἐν ταῖς κατὰ τὴν Πεντηκοστὴν εὐχαῖς τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου, καὶ ὅτι τὸ κατὰ τὴν Πεντηκοστὴν ἐκχυθὲν Πνεῦμα οὐ τὸ ἓν πρόσωπον τῆς Τριάδος, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τούτου δωρεὰ καὶ χάρις· αὐτὴ γὰρ καὶ μερίζεται.
«Ἕτι, ὅτι τὸ μὲν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ ἓν πρόσωπον τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ἀεί τε ταὐτὸν αὐτό ἐστιν ἑαυτῷ, ἀόρατόν τε καὶ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀκοινώνητον· ἡ δὲ τούτου χάρις καὶ δωρεά, ὡς Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, οὕτω καὶ Θεὸς λεγομένη, ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ ὁρᾶται καὶ μερίζεται καὶ παρὰ πάντων μετέχεται.»]

On this question, Joseph Bryennius plainly agrees with Palamas:

No one of sound mind (he says), whether he thinks the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Son, or from both, holds the opinion that the person of the Spirit takes up his abode among men; for since he is God by nature, not only is he invisible, in this respect, to every created nature, but even to the Cherubim themselves he is by nature imparticipable.

[Λόγος η´ περὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος. Opera omnia, ed. E. Bulgaris, tome 1, Leipzig, 1768, p. 344: «Οὐδεὶς ὑγιαίνων τὰς φρένας δοξάζει τὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑπόστασιν … ἐπιδημεῖν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.»]

As for theologians and polemical writers of the modern era, the greatest part of them accept this Palamite view, even those who in other matters contradict the theologian of the hesychasts….

There is not much on George Moschabar in English; the following brief sketch of his life may help, in a small way, to remedy that lack. It is translated, somewhat loosely, from the German summary of a recent dissertation in Greek, Δήμητρα Ἰ Μονίου, Γεώργιος Μοσχάμπαρ: Ὁ βασικός ἀντιρρητικός θεολόγος τῆς πρώϊμης παλαιολογείου περιόδου, βίος καί ἔργο (Athens 2009), pp. 368-370. For anyone interested, the dissertation can be read online: see the above link.


George Moschabar was, without question, an important and gifted author of religious works, who was born most likely between the years 1230 and 1240 and, in the earliest years of his life, must have lived in Islamic territory, as may be inferred from his surname or, rather, his pseudonym.

After this, he left his parents and betook himself to Nicaea, a city which at that time was a popular destination for ambitious youths. There, although of middle class origins, he had the opportunity to receive a higher education alongside Theodore II Laskaris (1254-1258) and to study under the care of renowned, significant figures of his time. He completed his studies in the year 1271. Within ten years, the theologian had made a name for himself as a teacher of the gospel and had begun working actively within the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Concurrently with this, he took a stance favoring the opposition to ecclesiastical union, at a time when the emperor Michael VIII and his patriarch John XI Bekkos were doing everything in their power to implement the Union of the Churches. As officer of Hagia Sophia and a titled official at the Patriarch’s court, Moschabar had no opportunity to uphold his anti-latin positions openly; therefore he confined himself, for the time being, to authoring anonymous circular letters against the Patriarch so as not to have to bear open responsibility for his published opinions.

Later, that is, in the year 1282, when Andronikos II had ascended the imperial throne, the situation in Constantinople changed radically: the opponents of ecclesiastical union emerged from the background and assumed an active role and a decisive, influential position in framing ecclesiastical-political developments. Gregory II the Cypriot (= “Cyprius”) was appointed as new patriarch; he appointed Moschabar as chartophylax of the Great Church and set him at his side as a trusted aide. As a titled official, the theologian now acknowledged his earlier writings as his own and openly pursued his polemic against the Union of the Churches.

Being convinced that the Western Church had perpetrated and supported a fraud, he published numerous dogmatic works: some were newly composed writings, others, reworked editions of the anonymous circular letters he had published previously. Consequently, the literary production of the theologian is found to be very considerable: his works extend to at least 1100 pages in manuscript, preserved in 26 manuscripts in eighteen different libraries. They may be classified as follows: either they appear as chapters, belonging to the branch of theology that is termed “antirrhetic” or refutatory, and having as content those differences which divide the Christian churches (107 in total); or else they appear as dialogues or are composed as Logoi (treatises, discourses) against the Latins. In all cases, they have as their scope the same central recurring theme, that of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father solely and alone.

Parallel to his extensive literary activity, Moschabar not surprisingly took part in the disputes which erupted within the Church, and had a most far-reaching influence among his contemporaries. He participated in the synod of Constantinople and signed the Tome of Blachernae in which John Bekkos, Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites were stigmatized and condemned as heretics. Later, oddly enough, he turned against Patriarch Cyprius and even had doubts about the Tome which he himself had signed and thus, as to its contents, had legitimized. Subsequently he took the lead of that group which had arisen within ecclesiastical circles and which maintained the position that Cyprius should be viewed as no less of a heretic than John Bekkos. Among its adherents were Michael Eskammatismenos and John Pentecclesiotes, who sought to support this position and to elaborate its dogmatic significance. Although Cyprius reproached [Moschabar] with organizing a propaganda campaign against him with the aim of removing him from office, nevertheless Emperor Andronikos summoned Cyprius before a tribunal and constrained him to renounce his title to office, after first [agreeing] that the orthodoxy of [Cyprius’s] faith would be clearly affirmed and recognized by a procedure which had been proposed by Moschabar himself, who, last but not least, had also written the text acknowledging the εὐσέβεια [piety] of the former patriarch. This text by Moschabar represents the last testimony that has come down to us concerning the antiunionist theologian.

From the year 1289 onward, other traces of him are lost and his other activities remain hidden from us to this day. We do not know whether he continued composing anti-latin treatises or withdrew from this work entirely. Whatever the activities of the last years of his life may have been, we can take it as certain that Moschabar must have been a remarkable person, who influenced his own era as profoundly as he did subsequent centuries. His works in later years would be continually reused, whether identified as his own or taken as anonymous, in such a way that (not least) many important personalities did not hesitate to adopt them as their own. Maximos Margunios may be taken as a most characteristic example of this — a scholar who, some three hundred years later, would present and publish a dialogue by Moschabar as his own composition. But numerous were those scholars who were capable of appreciating Moschabar’s literary legacy and for whom this legacy served as a model for their own writing.

However scholars may have met with the antiunionist theologian’s texts, the fact is clear that George Moschabar was a significant personality who gave expression to the theology of the thirteenth century against the Union of the Churches and found numerous followers, both during his own lifetime and during the following centuries.

I began rereading Hegel this afternoon, after coming across a note in the book Geist oder Energie by Dorothea Wendebourg (Münich 1980). Wendebourg (p. 7) says that the point stressed as an axiom by some modern theologians (Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, et al.) that the only way to a knowledge of God in his eternal being is through God’s self-revelation in his economy, was made by Hegel some two hundred years ago in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, vol. 3. That axiom is important, not only in itself, but also for the work I am currently doing on Bekkos: in his book Against George Moschabar which I have edited, one of the main criticisms Bekkos makes against his adversary is that the latter, by claiming that grace, or divine energy, is separate from the person of the Holy Spirit and denying that what Christ sends is the Holy Spirit himself, the third person of the Trinity, undercuts the whole basis for our understanding God to be a Trinity. Wendebourg (who has evidently not read this book by Bekkos) makes essentially the same point as Bekkos in a short English summary of her book, titled “From the Cappadocian Fathers to Gregory Palamas: The Defeat of Trinitarian Theology,” in: Elizabeth A. Livingstone, ed., Studia Patristica, vol. XVII, part one (Oxford 1982), pp. 194-198.

Anyway, those who have read Kierkegaard, who criticizes Hegel as a proponent of a soulless historicist approach to faith, may find the following passage from Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion fairly shocking. Although Hegel held an extreme view on the ability of reason to comprehend the truths of faith, he was, on matters of basic Christian dogma, an orthodox Christian. And his criticisms of a purely historical approach to dogma that, because of its indifference to the content of what is studied, remains spiritually dead, still deserve to be taken to heart.


From J. Glenn Gray, ed., G. W. F. Hegel on Art, Religion, and Philosophy (New York 1970), pp. 163-166.

“Christ still indeed continues to be made the central point of faith, as Mediator, Reconciler, and Redeemer; but what was known as the work of redemption has received a very prosaic and merely psychological signification, so that although the edifying words have been retained, the very thing that was essential in the old doctrine of the Church has been expunged….

“Even though Christ be for many the central point of faith and devotion in the deeper sense, yet Christian life as a whole restricts itself to this devotional bent, and the weighty doctrines of the Trinity, of the resurrection of the body, as also the miracles in the Old and New Testaments, are neglected as matters of indifference, and have lost their importance. The divinity of Christ, dogma, what is peculiar to the Christian religion is set aside, or else reduced to something of merely general nature. It is not only by the Enlightenment that Christianity has been thus treated, but even by pious theologians themselves. These latter join with the men of the Enlightenment in saying that the Trinity was brought into Christian doctrine by the Alexandrian school, by the neo-Platonists. But even if it must be conceded that the fathers of the Church studied Greek philosophy, it is in the first instance a matter of no importance whence that doctrine may have come; the only question is whether it be essentially, inherently, true; but that is a point which is not examined into, and yet that doctrine is the keynote of the Christian religion….

“The strongest indication, however, that the importance of these dogmas has declined, is to be perceived in the fact that they are treated principally in a historical manner, and are regarded in the light of convictions which belong to others, as matters of history, which do not go on in our own mind as such, and which do not concern the needs of our spirit. The real interest here is to find out how the matter stands so far as others are concerned, what part others have played, and centres in this accidental origin and appearance of doctrine. The question as to what is a man’s own personal conviction only excites astonishment. The absolute manner of the origin of these doctrines out of the depth of spirit, and thus the necessity, the truth, which they have for our spirits too, is shoved on one side by this historical treatment. It brings much zeal and erudition to bear on these doctrines. It is not with their essential substance, however, that it is occupied, but with the externalities of the controversies about them, and with the passions which have gathered around this external mode of the origin of truth. Thus theology is by her own act put in a low enough position.

“If the philosophical knowledge of religion is conceived of as something to be reached historically only, then we should have to regard the theologians who have brought it to this point as clerks in a mercantile house, who have only to keep an account of the wealth of strangers, who only act for others without obtaining any property for themselves. They do, indeed, receive salary, but their reward is only to serve, and to register that which is the property of others. Theology of this kind has no longer a place at all within the domain of thought; it has no longer to do with infinite thought in and for itself, but only with it as a finite fact, as opinion, ordinary thought, and so on. History occupies itself with truths which were truths—namely, for others, not with such as would come to be the possession of those who are occupied with them. With the true content, with the knowledge of God, such theologians have no concern. They know as little of God as a blind man sees of a painting, even though he handles the frame. They know how a certain dogma was established by this or that council; what grounds those present at such a council had for establishing it, and how this or that opinion came to predominate. And in all this, it is indeed religion that is in question, and yet it is not religion which here comes under consideration. Much is told us of the history of the painter of the picture, and of the fate of the picture itself, what price it had at different times, into what hands it came, but we are never permitted to see anything of the picture itself.

“It is essential in philosophy and religion, however, that the spirit should itself enter with supreme interest into an inner relation, should not only occupy itself with a thing that is foreign to it, but should draw its content from that which is essential, and should regard itself as worthy of such knowledge. For here man is concerned with the value of his own spirit, and he is not at liberty humbly to remain outside and to wander about at a distance.”

This story is ten years old, and the current pope has said similar things; but the text is relevant for an ongoing debate at the school where I teach. From the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog:

I notice that in Germany, but also in the United States, a pretty hot debate is going on which pits so-called creationism against evolutionism. Creation and evolution are presented as if they were alternatives which logically exclude one another. The one who believes in the Creator is not supposed to be able to think in evolutionary terms, and the one who affirms evolution is supposed to be a non-believer in God by definition. This contraposition is an absurdity, because, on the one hand, there are many lines of scientific evidence in favor of evolution, which appears to be a reality we cannot help but see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution does not respond to all questions. In particular, it does not respond to the great philosophical question: what is the origin of all things? And how does the whole take a direction whose point of arrival is humanity? It’s very important, I think, and I was trying to say this at Regensburg in my lecture, that reason needs to open itself up more, so that, yes, it sees the physical and biological data, but also that these data are not sufficient to explain all of reality.

I’m reposting here an article published today by Moon of Alabama, which I think deserves the widest possible readership. The article makes it absolutely clear that ISIS, which is currently attempting to capture the eastern Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor from Syrian government control, has the support of the United States military, and that the US lied when it claimed that its air attack upon Syrian army positions in Deir ez-Zor last September, in which over 100 Syrian soldiers were killed, was a mistake.


How The U.S. Enabled ISIS To Take Deir Ezzor

The city of Deir Ezzor (Deir ez-Zur) in east-Syria is on the verge of falling into the hands of the Takfiris of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). More than 100,000 civilian inhabitants of Deir Ezzor and thousands of soldiers defending them are in immediate danger of being murdered by the savage ISIS forces. The current situation is a direct consequence of U.S. military action against the SAA and non-action against ISIS.

Deir Ezzor is besieged by ISIS since September 2015. But the city was well defended by its garrison of Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and all further attacks by ISIS were repelled. Supply to the city was hauled in by air through the Deir Ezzor airport and through air drops by the Syrian and Russian airforces. Relief by ground forces and ground supplies are not possible as Deir Ezzor is more than 100 km away from the nearest SAA positions west of Palmyra and as the desert in between is under the control of ISIS.

Four days ago a new attack by ISIS on Deir Ezzor was launched and has since continued. ISIS reinforcements and resupplies had come over months despite air interdiction from the Russian and Syrian airforces. Yesterday ISIS managed to cut off the airport, where the local SAA command and its main supplies are hosted, from the city proper. It is now attacking in full force from all sides. Bad weather makes air support from the outside sporadic and difficult. Unless some unforeseen happens it is only a question of time until the airport and the city fall to ISIS.

The U.S. has condoned and/or even actively supported the imminent ISIS taking of Deir Ezzor by (at least) three measures:

  • a massive U.S. air attack on SAA forces in September 2016 enabled ISIS to take a controlling position and to cut off SAA resupplies
  • a U.S. attack against a power station in January disabled the last electricity supplies to the city
  • U.S. non-intervention enabled ISIS reinforcements from Mosul and west Iraq to Deir Ezzor in east-Syria

On September 16 2016 an hour long U.S. led air attack on SAA positions on the Tharda hills to the south of the airport killed over 100 SAA soldiers, destroyed a big SAA supply dump and several SAA tanks and artillery pieces. Immediately after the U.S. attack ISIS took the hills and has since held them. The positions allow for fire control over the airport of Deir Ezzor.

The U.S. military claimed that the attack was a mistake but a thorough reading of the investigation report of that “mistake” shows that the U.S. military attack was intentionally targeting the SAA to make a political point against an announced U.S.-Russian cooperation agreement to fight ISIS. (Danish airforce F-16 planes and drones under U.S. command had taken part in the attack. After the report was published, the Danish government pulled all air elements from its participation in the U.S. coalition against ISIS.)

Since the U.S. attack in September no significant air supplies have reached Deir Ezzor. Even helicopter landing at the airport is only possible at night and by taking very high risks. The city inhabitants and their defenders are completely cut off.

Early January U.S. airforce attacks destroyed the electricity plant at the Omar oilfield near Deir Ezzor. The plant was the last one to supply the city of Deir Ezzor. Since then only a few military generators and dwindling fuel supplies are left for medical and communication equipment.

When the Iraqi Army plans for retaking the ISIS held city of Mosul were developed and commenced in October the U.S. insisted on leaving a western corridor open for ISIS forces inclined to flee from Mosul into the direction of Deir Ezzor. Hundreds if not thousands of ISIS fighters used the corridor. The U.S. controlled Kurdish forces in north Iraq let ISIS pass from Iraq to Syria. Fearing (correctly) that an ISIS move out of Mosul towards Deir Ezzor would mean the fall of Deir Ezzor Russia and Iran intervened with the Iraqi government. Despite U.S. wishes the Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi ordered his Popular Mobilization Forces (PMU) to cut off the western exit:

Iran was not the only country pressing for the escape to be closed west of Mosul. Russia, another powerful Assad ally, also wanted to block any possible movement of militants into Syria, said Hashemi. The Russian defence ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.One of Assad’s biggest enemies, France, was also concerned that hundreds of fighters linked to attacks in Paris and Brussels might escape. The French have contributed ground and air support to the Mosul campaign.

Still, the battle plan did not foresee closing the road to the west of Mosul until Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi agreed in late October to despatch the Popular Mobilisation militias.

Despite a fast advance by the PMU from the south against Tal Afar to cut off the escape road many ISIS fighters in west Iraq were able to flee across the border and towards Deir Ezzor with their equipment in tact. They reinforced the ISIS troops now attacking Deir Ezzor. The U.S. has uncontested air superiority over west Iraq and east Syria but did not once intervene against the large scale move.

If ISIS takes Deir Ezzor it will likely kill (as it did on other occasions) all captured SAA troops and anyone it believes to have cooperated with them. The soldiers know this. They will fight down to the last bullet. But without any reinforcements and resupplies their chances are slim.

When the Syrian government besieged al-Qaeda forces in east-Aleppo the “western” media and the various “Syrian opposition” propaganda outlets were running an all out campaign in support of the besieged Takfiris. There is no such campaign in support of the civilians and soldiers in Deir Ezzor. In their few reports about the imminent fall of Deir Ezzor “western” publications even resort to outright lying. Thus claims the Daily Telegraph:

The US-led coalition, as well as the Russians, have been bombing the jihadists in Deir Ezzor for the last 18 months but have been unable to dislodge them.

No significant U.S. air attacks have been flown against ISIS forces around Deir Ezzor at all. All attacks flown by the U.S. in the area have been against Syrian government troops or their supporting infrastructure.

The U.S. official rhetoric about fighting ISIS is not supported by observable facts on the battle field. One can only conclude that the U.S. military does not only condone but supports ISIS in gaining control over Deir Ezzor despite the extreme high risk for anyone left in the city.

This [is] likely to further the larger long term plan of installing a “Salafist principality” in western Iraq and eastern Syria that creates a justification for the U.S. military to stay in the area to “fight ISIS” and which can be activated against the Syrian and Iraqi government whenever convenient. U.S. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have both admitted that they earlier allowed ISIS to grow in Iraq and Syria for exactly such political purposes.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Above is a link to a document, released yesterday by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, titled Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution. I’ve skimmed through it; although the document asserts, without presenting any evidence, that Russia engaged in cyber espionage against US political organizations and hacked state and local electoral boards (see pp. 2-3), most of the document actually consists of a diatribe against the network RT, which it blames for consistently and publicly favoring Mr. Trump’s candidacy over Mrs. Clinton’s. E.g., on p. 4, it notes that “On 6 August, RT published an English-language video called ‘Julian Assange Special: Do WikiLeaks Have the E-mail That’ll Put Clinton in Prison?’ and an exclusive interview with Assange entitled ‘Clinton and ISIS Funded by the Same Money.'” The document says nothing as to whether it is true that Mrs. Clinton and ISIS are funded by the same money, that is, by Saudi Arabia and Qatar; it simply presents RT’s reporting this as evidence of unfair bias. Nor does it argue that e-mails possessed by WikiLeaks do not contain evidence of criminal activity by Mrs. Clinton; instead, it insinuates that a Russian media outlet has no business reporting on this possibility.

Surely most Americans who choose to watch RT are aware that that news outlet is funded by the Russian government, just as Americans who choose to watch the BBC are aware that that outlet is funded by the government of Great Britain. If in fact many Americans do find the reporting on RT of interest, it may be because they see America’s mainstream media as, in important ways, failing to do their job of keeping the public informed. Or, to put it more simply, a lot of Americans are tired of being “entertained” and lied to by news organizations that should be telling them plainly what their own government is doing; if they can get better information from abroad, so be it. In fact, the CIA has a long tradition of attempting to shape the way news is presented in this country (do a search on “Operation Mockingbird“). Read in the light of that history, Clapper’s document can be seen as expressing chagrin at the US intelligence community’s inability to shape the public narrative in ways that it used to.

Perhaps it is even the case that some Americans, reflecting on our foreign policy, are unhappy with what our government has been doing in recent years in places like Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, and would like to see a change in direction. Perhaps some Americans, seeing a choice between favoring Saudi Arabia and its jihadist proxy troops on the one hand, and a practical cooperation with Russia on the other, favor the latter policy. It is remarkable that this document nowhere considers that as a real possibility — that is, that the American public are educated enough to make up their own minds on things that matter, and might actually favor a cooperation with Russia.

The following is another extract from a Facebook discussion. I had originally posted an article by Stephen Gowans titled “How an evidence-free CIA finding alleging Russian interference in the US election was turned into an indisputable ‘truth’“; this raised objections from an old friend of mine; then (after much spilling of ink) another friend in New Jersey, who is a teacher, remarked that some of the sources I was citing would be rejected by her in her Freshman writing class as unreliable. This was my response to her.


…,

First, I would point out that, of those sources which you say would not stand the test of credibility in your freshman writing class, one of them (the consortiumnews document) was written by a group of retired intelligence professionals whose credentials include “former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA,” … “former United States Senator,” … “Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA,” and so on; another source is a journal called the Belfast Telegraph, which basically reports the personal testimony of a career UK diplomat, Craig Murray, who says that he met the person who leaked the DNC documents to Wikileaks and that that person is an insider, not a foreigner, an American, not a Russian; if you don’t trust the Belfast Telegraph’s account of this, you can go to Craig Murray’s own webpage, and read what he has to say about it: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/…/cias-absence-conviction/ If what you tell your Freshman writing students is that statements made by former senators, ambassadors, and members of the intelligence community are not to be trusted when those statements conflict with declarations made by the CIA and the consensus opinion presented by the New York Times and NPR, then I would submit that you are teaching your Freshman students to be dutiful parrots of an officially sanctioned narrative and not critical thinkers.

I appreciate your attempt to understand where I am coming from here, and I do not generally unfriend people unless they have a habit of being egregiously unfriendly. I think that, if you look through my Facebook page over a number of years, you will find that, from the beginning of the Syrian war, I was skeptical of the official American position, namely, that Assad is a tyrant and that the people trying to depose him are democracy-loving freedom fighters. One reason why I was skeptical of this is that, having worked in Albania and having known people who visited Syria in the past, I know that that country was, at least until this war began, the religiously most tolerant country in the Arab world. Very early in that war, two Orthodox bishops were abducted; they haven’t been heard from since, and have presumably been killed. This abduction was done by the people my government has been supporting and touting as freedom-fighters — people who also happen to be supported and funded by Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive, religiously intolerant countries in the world and a major US ally. It is one incident, but, for me, it had a certain decisive effect; it helped bring home to me the extent to which the American humanitarian rationale to this war is a lie. Virtually everything I have learned about the war since then has confirmed for me the utter falsity of the narrative about this war which most people accept as fact: that we are virtuous humanitarians, that the Russians, coming to the aid of the Syrian government, are bloodthirsty murderers, that we are genuinely committed to destroying ISIS, etc., etc. It’s all lies and propaganda, and most people, yourself included, seem quite oblivious of the extent to which so-called reputable media outlets like the New York Times and NPR feed their readers a steady diet of propaganda on issues like this.

That is perhaps why I am inclined to be skeptical towards the pronouncement by Mr. Obama and the CIA and the FBI that Mr. Trump’s presidential victory was due to the work of “Russian hackers.” I have learned, by long experience, that most of what comes out of the mouths of people like John Kirby, Samantha Powers, John Kerry and the like is (if you’ll pardon the expression) bullshit, and that Mr. Obama, who has hired these career liars to spread this manure far and wide, is himself a consummate liar and generally not to be trusted when he pontificates on American virtue and Russian perfidy.

Of course, you don’t have to believe me, and probably won’t. But the claim that people who do report on these things, who present other points of view differing from the approved narrative of the mainstream are, by definition, mere peddlers of “fake news,” or that, because a number of sources report a narrative that differs radically from the approved one, they “harbor biases” (perhaps they are biased towards the truth) is simply insulting to one’s intelligence. It supposes that educated people cannot make their own decisions, on the basis of reason and experience, about what sources of information they should trust; they need to have someone else make these decisions for them. If that is the attitude you are teaching your students, you are doing them a disservice.

Yesterday, a former student of mine, whom I count as a friend, requested on Facebook that any Facebook friends of hers who voted for Trump unfriend her. This is my response.

Dear …,

In compliance with your request on Facebook yesterday, I am unfriending you. But, for the sake of past friendship, I would ask that you read the following account of why I voted for Mr. Trump this past Tuesday. My decision came down to basically two issues: the issue of war, and the issue of crime.

First, the issue of war. Mrs. Clinton, as shown by her actions and statements over the past two decades, is a notorious war hawk, one of the architects of the doctrine of “humanitarian interventionism” that is essentially imperialism with a smiley face. In her concern to outdo the Republicans at their own game, she never met a war she didn’t like. As First Lady, she supported her husband’s bombing of Serbia; as senator, she voted in favor of the war on Iraq and supported the Patriot Act; as Secretary of State, she orchestrated the assault upon Libya which left that once prosperous country in ruins; she joked about the brutal sodomizing and murder of Libya’s president, Col. Gaddafi (“We came, we saw, he died”); she helped organize the “rat line” whereby the CIA illegally transported arms from Benghazi to jihadists in Syria via Turkey (one consequence of which was the murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens, who recognized the danger he was in and had petitioned the State Department in vain for an armed guard); through her protégé Victoria Nuland she orchestrated a violent “color revolution” in Ukraine that has led to a civil war in that country and thousands of deaths; since leaving office, she has continued to back the terrorists fighting to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria – using the bogus excuse that the people we are supporting are “moderates” — and, disastrously, she has called for the implementation in Syria of a “no fly zone,” which could easily lead to a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia. Many compare the current situation with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 (frequently referred to as the most dangerous moment in human history), and have pointed out that, if anything, the dangers of nuclear war are greater now than then, partly because the existence of “mini-nukes” makes using nuclear weapons more thinkable, partly because the current Washington political establishment is less restrained and self-critical, more addicted to group-think, and more beholden to foreign governments for guiding US foreign policy. Mrs. Clinton is the perfect embodiment of that political establishment; she seems utterly oblivious to the dangers of war; like her neocon advisers, she is happy to support the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, place nuclear missiles on a hair trigger within easy striking distance of cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, and, at home, direct a constant stream of abuse towards the Russians, blaming them for all of America’s problems including Wikileaks’ revelations about corruption at the DNC and in her own campaign. Among these revelations, there is the fact that Mrs. Clinton received massive funding (illegally) from the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar when she knew that these governments were funding ISIS and supplying it with arms to murder and rape women and children. This, then, in short, is why I publicly stated long ago that I could not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She is a person with a lot of blood on her hands, and has repeatedly demonstrated bad judgment in the very area where she thinks her credentials are strongest, foreign policy. I saw a vote for Clinton as being a vote for war, for an escalation of proxy regime change wars in Syria and elsewhere, and for the suicidal possibility of nuclear war with Russia and/or China. I rejected this by voting for Trump, who has clearly expressed his intention to end the Syrian war and cooperate with Russia in fighting Islamic terrorism, maintaining this position even in the face of the hypocritical media criticism that he is Putin’s puppet. With Trump, there is at least a possibility that the neocons who have dominated American foreign policy thinking for the past generation will be kicked out of power. I would like to see that.

Then there is the issue of crime. This is a more diffuse and nebulous subject, since the reported criminality of the Clintons is prodigious and multifaceted, but the facts are less easily established; at one level, this criminality involves bribery, money laundering, kick-back schemes, vote-rigging, use of a charitable organization for private enrichment, and the illegal use of a private e-mail server for transmitting classified information; at a deeper level, there is evidence that it involves kidnapping, child abuse, and murder. Because the former allegations are better known, I will focus on the latter. Around the beginning of August this year, I became aware of a string of deaths of at least five people who had been investigating the Clintons, all of whom died within the space of a month, some murdered without apparent motive, others said to have committed suicide; among them were Seth Rich, Sean Lucas, and Victor Thorn. If one does an internet search on “Clinton Body Count” one can find a remarkable infographic chart which, if nothing else, makes it clear that possessing compromising knowledge about the Clintons’ personal activities can be hazardous to one’s health. I have read enough history to understand that the common, benign assumption that American politicians are basically good and do not murder to further their careers is false; among presidents, Lyndon Johnson and the Bushes are men who rose by this nefarious practice. If mainstream news does not report these matters, if they label any attempt to shed light upon them “conspiracy theories,” it is because people in the media would rather keep their comfortable positions by writing pabulum than end up dead like Seth Rich, Sean Lucas, Victor Thorn, Michael Hastings, and other investigative journalists who sought to expose corruption in high places (note that Mrs. Clinton, in a meeting with her staff, expressed a desire that someone would get rid of Julian Assange; at first, they thought she was joking, but it became clear she wasn’t).

More recently, just before the election, I came across a picture that juxtaposed Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta and his brother Tony Podesta with police sketches made some years ago by Scotland Yard in its investigation of the abduction of a three-year-old girl, Madeleine McCann, from a hotel room in Portugal on May 3, 2007. (See http://sli.mg/vbobS8 ) To my thinking, the resemblance of the two brothers to the faces in the police sketches is uncanny, particularly so in the case of John Podesta. Later, I read an article that pointed out that the sketch resembling Tony Podesta shows a small mole over the corner of his right eyebrow; Tony Podesta has a small mole over the corresponding corner of his left eyebrow. Other evidence: Wikileaks’ cache of John Podesta’s emails begins on the day after the abduction (May 4, 2007), suggesting that earlier emails had been erased from the server; also, it shows that John Podesta in fact had visited Portugal, and had business contacts in Praia da Luz where Madeleine McCann was kidnapped. Add to this the Podesta brothers’ acquaintance with Marina Abramovic, their invitation to one of her “Spirit Cooking” affairs (a form of “art” involving blood and semen that is essentially a satanic ritual), perverse artworks in Tony Podesta’s house depicting violence to children, the association of the brothers with the “Comet Ping Pong” nightclub in Washington, D.C., and the frequent appearance in Podesta’s e-mails of pedophile code language: the result was that I became convinced that the Podestas are involved in some form of child trafficking. Other evidence tying this activity with the Clintons: Bill Clinton’s frequent flights on the convicted pedophile Jeremy Epstein’s private jet; Hillary Clinton’s intervention to free Laura Silsby, who was in jail in Haiti after being convicted of trafficking children; the sick behavior of Andrew Wiener, the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest adviser, Huma Abedin. The net result of all this is that it appears likely to me that child abuse is part of the political culture to which the Clintons belong, and that the Clintons themselves belong to, and probably are at the heart of, a political child trafficking ring, in which child abuse is used, among other things, for political ends — most likely, for blackmailing potential opponents so as to silence them and keep them in line.

These revelations about the Madeleine McCann abduction were what finally tipped the balance for me. Until that point, I had seriously considered voting for Jill Stein. But, given that I live in a swing state, where the election might have been decided by a few votes, I did not want to do anything that would allow Hillary Clinton to enter the White House. I voted for Trump, with a clear conscience. There are many things that I do not like about Mr. Trump, not least his grotesque private comments about women; I also disagree with him on many matters of policy, particularly concerning the environment and economics. These are important issues, but I considered them less important than preventing nuclear war and preventing a crime syndicate from taking control of the United States government. On both these issues, I am genuinely convinced that Mrs. Clinton represented a real danger. You may disagree. But I hope that the above discussion shows that my vote for Mr. Trump was not done from motives of “racism” or “sexism,” but out of concern for the common good.

Yours truly,
Peter Gilbert