k2 & other Orthodox, I have been reading The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity, and have some questions. I had put the book down for a while, but picked it back up this week, and as usual, was fascinated by what I read.
1) Can you further delve into the "energies vs essence of God", especially as it relates to the Hesychasts? When they talk of prayer being something that involves the entire body, is this similar to getting into a meditative state? I did love this quote (especially the part of the burning bush), but want to have a better understanding of this from a lay perspective:
I am really intrigued by the Hesychast approach to prayer.
2) If I understand correctly, the two primary sources of conflict between Rome and the East were the Filioque and Papal claim to primacy. I finally have a better grasp on the conflict over the Filioque, and completely agree with the Orthodox position, especially in regards to the view that the Nicene Creed is the common possession of the entire church and can only be changed with an Ecumenical Council. I also agree theologically for why the East is opposed to the Filioque, but it seems the West didn't officially adopt it for hundreds of years after it was first added by the Franks. It just seems odd that the West would cling to this position given that they didn't officially embrace it themselves for hundreds of years. That said, I've also read about a dispute re: the bread used for communion...leavened (East) vs unleavened (West). Is this a major dispute? Is there a reason for the disagreement on this? Does it matter, or does it fall into the category of "non-essentials"?
3) Final question, for now: can you explain, in lay terms, exactly what the apophatic approach looks like. Here's a quote from the book:
Again, thank you for all your help in understanding this. I love this emphasis on mysticism and certainly want to know more about that.
1) Can you further delve into the "energies vs essence of God", especially as it relates to the Hesychasts? When they talk of prayer being something that involves the entire body, is this similar to getting into a meditative state? I did love this quote (especially the part of the burning bush), but want to have a better understanding of this from a lay perspective:
Quote:
' God is not a nature , ' he wrote , ' for He is above all nature ; He is not a being , for He is above all beings No single thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the supreme nature or nearness to it . ' But however remote from us in His essence , yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to us . These energies are not something that exists apart from God , not a gift which God confers upon humans ; they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world . God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies . The world , as Gerard Manley Hopkins said , is charged with the grandeur of God ; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush , permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire of God's energies."
I am really intrigued by the Hesychast approach to prayer.
2) If I understand correctly, the two primary sources of conflict between Rome and the East were the Filioque and Papal claim to primacy. I finally have a better grasp on the conflict over the Filioque, and completely agree with the Orthodox position, especially in regards to the view that the Nicene Creed is the common possession of the entire church and can only be changed with an Ecumenical Council. I also agree theologically for why the East is opposed to the Filioque, but it seems the West didn't officially adopt it for hundreds of years after it was first added by the Franks. It just seems odd that the West would cling to this position given that they didn't officially embrace it themselves for hundreds of years. That said, I've also read about a dispute re: the bread used for communion...leavened (East) vs unleavened (West). Is this a major dispute? Is there a reason for the disagreement on this? Does it matter, or does it fall into the category of "non-essentials"?
3) Final question, for now: can you explain, in lay terms, exactly what the apophatic approach looks like. Here's a quote from the book:
How would the statement "God is love" fit into that? Is that not a positive statement? Isn't "God is infinite and incomprehensible" a positive statement of who God is, not what He is not?Quote:
This mystical tradition is marked, particularly in the case of Clement and Gregory, by a strong use of the apophatic approach, whereby God is described in negative rather than positive terms. Since God cannot be properly comprehended by the human mind, all language that is applied to Him is inevitably inexact. It is therefore less misleading to use negative language about God rather than positive to refuse to say what God is, and to state simply what He is not...
The apophatic language of Dionysius was repeated by many others. 'God is infinite and incomprehensible,' wrote John of Damascus, 'and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility God does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence, but that He is above all existing things, nay even above existence itself.'*
Again, thank you for all your help in understanding this. I love this emphasis on mysticism and certainly want to know more about that.
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion."
--St Isaac the Syrian
--St Isaac the Syrian