In these Undogmatic Days, Lets us Stand against "Unity" at the Cost of Truth: New Book-"UNIA: The face and the Disguise (New edition)"

Book Presentation

(NEW EDITION)

Edition Greek-Orthodox books

«UNIA: THE FACE AND THE DISGUISE»

THE BOOK BY FR. GEORGE METALLINOS

NOW CIRCULATING IN ENGLISH 

Now in circulation is the English edition of the book “UNIA: The Face and the Disguise” by Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos, Professor Emeritus of the Athens University School of Theology. This new edition is included in the publications of the Christian Orthodox Philanthropical Society of Friends of the Sacred Retreat of Pantokrator at Melissohori “Saint Gregory Palamas”. 

In this very notable essay, Father George examines the historical course and the significance of the religious-political entity named “Unia”, that is, of the Papist communities in the Orthodox regions of Eastern Europe and the Middle East – mainly during the past four centuries – who have deceptively been observing the Orthodox liturgical rubric (sacred services, language, vestments, etc.), but have acknowledged primacy and infallibility in the person of the Pope of Rome.  The author analyzes Unia’s early link to the Papist “Holy Inquisition”, but also to the Jesuits, who had originally organized Unia as a disguised Latinism.  According to Fr. George, Unia was –on the one hand– a factor that balanced out the damage sustained by Papism on account of the Protestant Reform from the 16th century onwards, and on the other hand, it was also a lever that elevated the Pope as a universal Bishop, whose prestige is supposedly recognized not only in the West but also in the East, that is by the Uniates, who are a mere semblance of “Easterners”.   Unia exploited various favourable coincidences, such as the financial adversity that prevailed in various countries as well as schisms, but, par excellence, it exploited the support of Roman Catholic Governors, to impose itself en masse or even with force on Orthodox populations.  The strengthening of Unia was nothing short of the continuance of the Papacy’s medieval struggle for dominance (Investiture Controversy), for the implementation also of political and not only ecclesiastic authority by Rome.  It was the Pope’s oppression of the Orthodox through Unia that made the Orthodox of Eastern Europe turn to Russia during World War II - the same time during which the Uniates were collaborating with the German Nazis. 

The Professor of Ecclesiastic History especially focuses on the emergence of Unia in the region of Greece and the reaction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece, as well as -for example- the successful proselytism to Unia of the destitute Asia Minor refugees, through Uniate “philanthropy”. The upgraded (with Cardinals) status of Unia by the Vatican, both in the Ukraine and the broader area during the last decades, but also the Vatican’s stance on the ethnic and ecclesiastic subject of Skopje’s pseudo “Macedonia” and the wars of former Jugoslavia, prove that the problem of Unia is not one of the past. The Vatican’s persistence in preserving and strengthening Unia despite the reactions of the Orthodox, but also of many important Papist personages – and in spite of the damage to the ecumenist “dialogue of love” – proves that Unia continues to this day to be extremely precious to the Vatican, for the salvaging of its crumbled moral status and also for the weakening of Orthodox peoples, States and alliances (the current events in the Ukraine are most revealing). 

Finally, the author analyzes the soteriological repercussions of Unia’s activity, given that by maintaining all the heretic dogmas of Papism – dogmas that were condemned by Ecumenical Councils – Unia is deemed detrimental to the prerequisites for in-Christ salvation.  The matter of Unia is no longer a hiero-canonical one, as were the instances of Rome’s encroachments over a thousand years ago in the jurisdictions of the Eastern Patriarchates; it is primarily an ecclesiological problem and should be considered as a reason for the revision and redefinition of the theological dialogue of the Orthodox with an uncompromising and aggressive Rome.  The text is also flanked by significant, related, pan-Orthodox documents.

---

book size (in cm): 12,5X20.5
Pages: 124
ISBN: 978-618-81489-1-8
Language: English
1st edition: 2015
Publisher: Greek-Orthodox books
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source:

The Orthodox Church: "Still and Always The One and Only Church", or, a different title: "Don't get cozy with the Roman Catholic Church". I Ain't.

From here: 

---------------------------------------------------

On the Recent Events in Jerusalem and their Ecclesiological Underpinnings

By a Greek Orthodox priest.

What is one to make of the recent events in Jerusalem commemorating the 50th anniversary of the meeting of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI, during which the Patriarch of Constantinople, along with the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and other hierarchs of the Patriarchate, met with the Pope of Rome to conduct joint prayer services and issue joint statements? What problems, if any, do these meetings and statements pose to us as Orthodox Christians and to our Orthodox Faith? And, what, in the final analysis, is the essential theological problem at stake here?
These are some of the questions that many faithful ask, and they deserve a thorough answer in return. This short article will attempt to provide some answers, or at least the beginnings of such answers.

Those who would see in these ecumenical gatherings an overwhelmingly positive development speak of them as "exchanges of generosity, goodwill and hope," and "exchanges in the spirit of Christian love" which are "true expressions of the faith of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Orthodox." The champions of these gatherings never fail to admit that "although there are serious differences" between the Orthodox Church and Catholicism "which must not be overlooked, nevertheless our faith demands that we join together and witness to our shared Christian commitments." This is how a well-known American Orthodox theologian referred to the Jerusalem event and I believe he is accurately repeating the general conception among supporters.

If, however, we are to understand the meaning of these events in a spiritual and theological manner, we must go beyond the tired clichés and overused platitudes and examine the underlying ecclesiology which is either being implied or being expressed by the Patriarch and his supporters during these meetings. It is quite easy, and unfortunately quite common even among Orthodox Christians, to be satisfied with the flowery language of love and reconciliation and not pay attention to the deeper significance of the theology being expressed in word and deed. If we are to avoid such a pitfall and assist others in the same, we must acquire an Orthodox mindset and judge these important matters within the Orthodox framework and criteria.

The underlying problem here that few discuss is the ecclesiological implications of  the Patriarchate and its supporters’ new view of the Church. If the Jerusalem meeting and the accompanying gatherings (such as those in Paris, Boston and Atlanta) are judged to be destructive of Church unity and to undermine the mission of the Church, it is not, of course, because of the flowery language of love and understanding incessantly used on all sides, but because they are not grounded in the Orthodox Faith, in Orthodox ecclesiology. If, however, our representatives in these meetings are not expressing an Orthodox teaching on the Church, what are they expressing?

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of previous statements by hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople one could reference in order to answer this question. Citing them is both beyond the scope of this article and unnecessary, for in remarks made by the Patriarch of Constantinople in his first speech given in Jerusalem on May 23rd, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the essence of the new ecclesiology is clearly articulated:

The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by the "Word in the beginning," by the one "truly with God," and the Word "truly God", according to the evangelist of love, unfortunately, during her engagement on earth, on account of the dominance of human weakness and of impermanence of the will of the human intellect, was divided in time. This brought about various conditions and groups, of which each claimed for itself "authenticity" and "truth." The Truth, however, is One, Christ, and the One Church founded by Him.

Both before and after the great Schism of 1054 between East and West, our Holy Orthodox Church made attempts to overcome the differences, which originated from the beginning and for the most part from factors outside of the environs of the Church. Unfortunately, the human element dominated, and through the accumulation of "theological," "practical," and "social" additions the Local Churches were led into division of the unity of the Faith, into isolation, which developed occasionally into hostile polemics.

Note that the Patriarch states:

1. The One Church was divided in time.

2. That this division was the result of the dominance of human weakness. It is not stated, but it follows that this human weakness was stronger than the Divine Will for the Church He founded.

3. That the various groups, parts of the One Church, which resulted from this division each "claimed" to be the authentic and true Church. The implication here is that none of them, including the Orthodox Church, can rightfully lay claim to being exclusively the One Church.

4. And, yet, somehow, in spite of these competing groups all exclusively claiming authenticity and truth, the Church is one. Once again, it follows from all that is said that this oneness exists only outside of time, since the Church, as he said, was divided in time.

In order to gain a total picture of the new ecclesiology being presented, we should add to these views on the Church the Patriarch(ate)’s stance vis-à-vis Catholicism, which was on exhibit in both word and deed throughout the Jerusalem event. In all of the promotional material and patriarchal addresses, Catholicism—which synods of the Church and saints have for centuries now considered to be a heretical parasynagogue—is considered to be a Local Church, the Church in Rome. Likewise, the current Pope is considered to be a "contemporary successor of the early apostle [Peter] and current leader of the ancient church [of Rome]." The Patriarch has also referred to the current Pope as his brother bishop, co-responsible for the good governing of the One Church. He considers the sacraments performed by the Pope and his clerics as the self-same mysteries of the One Church. Thus it is not surprising that he views the Church as divided in history and yet somehow still one, if only outside of history.

 
What can we now say of this image of the Church presented by the Patriarch? We can say that:

1. It is in total harmony with the Second Vatican Council’s new ecclesiology as laid out in the conciliar documents Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio.

2. It is entirely at odds with the vision of the Church presented in relevant conciliar documents of the Orthodox Church, such as the decisions of the Council of 1484, the Patriarchal Encyclicals of 1848 and 1895, and in the writings of those Holy Fathers who have expressed the mind of the Church on the subject, such as Sts. Gregory Palamas, Nectarius of Pentapolis, Mark of Ephesus, Paisius Velichkovsky, and many others.

The Patriarch and his supporters are aligning themselves and attempting to align all of Orthodoxy with the ecclesiological line drawn during the Second Vatican Council. This new ecclesiology allows for a division of the Church "in time," such that the Orthodox Church and Catholicism are considered "two lungs" of the One Church—yet nevertheless divided. In this ecclesiology, the universal Church includes both Catholicism and all other Christian confessions. It is supposed that the Church is a communion of bodies that are more or less churches, a communion realized at various degrees of fullness, such that one part of the Church, that under the Pope, is considered "fully" the Church, and another part of the Church, such as a Protestant confession, "imperfectly" or only "partially" the Church. Thus, this ecclesiology allows for participation in the Church’s sacraments outside of her canonical boundaries, outside of the one Eucharistic assembly, which is antithetical with a properly understood "Eucharistic ecclesiology." 

Hence, the ecclesiology expressed in word and deed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the ecclesiology of Vatican II converge in the acceptance of a divided Church, or a Church rent asunder by the heavy hand of history. It might be characterized as ecclesiological Nestorianism, in which the Church is divided into two separate beings: on the one hand the Church in heaven, outside of time, alone true and whole; on the other, the Church, or rather "churches," on earth, in time, deficient and relative, lost in history’s shadows, seeking to draw near to one another and to that transcendent perfection, as much as is possible in "the weakness of the impermanent human will."

In this ecclesiology, the tumultuous and injurious divisions of human history have overcome the Church "in time." The human nature of the Church, being divided and rent asunder, has been separated from the Theanthropic Head. This is a Church on earth deprived of its ontological nature and not "one and holy," no longer possessing all the truth through its hypostatic union with the divine nature of the Logos.

This ecclesiology is, without doubt, at total odds with the belief and confession of the Orthodox in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church of Christ, as the Apostle Paul supremely defined it, is His body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all (τὸ σῶμα Αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου). The fullness of Christ is identified with the Body of Christ which is, like Christ when He walked on earth in time, as Theanthropos, visible and indivisible, being marked by divine-human characteristics. As Vladimir Lossky has written, all that can be asserted or denied about Christ can equally well be applied to the Church, inasmuch as it is a theandric organism. It follows, then, that just as we could never assert that Christ is divided, neither could we countenance the Church ever being divided. (cf. 1 Cor 1:13).

The Church, it goes without saying, was founded, established, spread, and exists to this day in time (and will exist until the Second Coming, and beyond). This is so because the Church is the Theanthropic Body of the Christ, who entered into time, walked, died, rose, ascended and is to return again in time. The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation in time. And just as our Lord was seen and touched and venerated in the flesh, in time, so too does His Body, the Church, continue—united and holy—in time. If we were to accept the division of the Church, we would be accepting the nullification of the Incarnation and the salvation of the world. As this new ecclesiology of a "divided church" ultimately annuls man’s salvation, it could be rightly considered as heresy.

Our belief in the unity and continuity of the Body of Christ, our confession of faith, this dogma of the Church, is based on nothing less than the divine promises of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when he said such words as these:

"When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." (Jn. 16:13).

"I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [of faith] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18).

"Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (Mt 28:16).

"In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." (Jn 16:33).

Likewise, from the mouth of Christ, the divine Apostle Paul, we hear more promises of the indivisibility and invincibility of the Church:

"And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is His body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Eph 1:22-23).

"The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tit 3:5).

 
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph 4:5).

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever."(Heb 13:8).

And, from the Apostle of Love, John the Theologian, we read that it is our faith in the God-man and His divine-human Body that is invincible and victorious over the fallen spirit of this world, which is above all, a spirit of division:

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (1 Jn 5:4).

So, then, has not the Spirit of Truth led His Church into "all truth"? Or, are we as Orthodox only advancing a "claim" of authenticity and truth? Has He not guarded His Church so that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? Or, has "human weakness" overcome Christ’s Body? Has He not remained with us, guiding us even until today and on to the end of time? Or, does He no longer exist as One "in time"? Has not our faith in the God-man overcome the world and the spirit of division? Or, is it, as the Patriarch supposes, that the "human element" and "human weakness" has overcome our faith and the unity of the Body of Christ?

To better understand the impossibility of both the Orthodox Church and Catholicism maintaining the identity of the One Church while being divided over matters of faith, let us look briefly at the marital union. In marriage, a man and a woman are united in Christ. There exists a three-fold unity, or a unity between two persons in a third Person. This is no mere human accord. This is a theanthropic unity, a manifestation of the mystery of the Incarnation and thus of the Church, according to the divine words of the Apostle Paul: This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph 5:32).

All unity in the Church is theanthropic. Indeed, truly united human beings are only to be found in the Church, for in the Church alone does man put on divine-humanity (Gal 3:27), the human nature of Christ. As the fallen, unredeemed human nature is hopelessly broken and divided within itself, separated from the principle of his unity, God, man can only be united by "putting on" a new human nature, the human nature of the God-man, which takes place in the mysteries, first of which is baptism. Therefore, we are restored to unity in ourselves, between ourselves and with God only through unity with the God-man in His human nature, in His Body, the Church.

Has there been division? Has the "marriage" fallen apart? Know that first one of the two persons ceased to exist "in Christ," fell away from Christ, and only then from the other. This human division is necessarily preceded by a break in communion with the Divine Person in which the two persons were united. Something similar can be said on the ecclesiastical plane.

The Patriarch maintains that even though "the Local Churches were led into division of the unity of the Faith" and "the One Church was divided in time," nevertheless both the Orthodox Church and Catholicism are united to Christ and manifest this unity with Him in common sacraments. This is impossible, however, for if both were united to Christ, they would necessarily be united to one another, since they find their unity in Christ. Simply put: if we are both in Christ, we are united. If we are divided, we can’t both be in Christ. In terms of ecclesiology, this means that both can’t be "the Church."

From the moment that one holds that the Church is divided, he can no longer hold that the members of the Church are united to the theanthropic nature of the Body of Christ. The Church that is envisioned is necessarily a merely human organism, in which the "dominance of human weakness and of [the] impermanence of the will of the human intellect" reigns and brings division.

We can also see this truth evidenced in the words of the Apostle of Love, the beloved Evangelist, John the Theologian. He states that if a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar. (1 Jn 4:20). Similarly, since love unites us to God, if we say that we are united with God but divided from our brother, we do not speak the truth. Furthermore, on the ecclesiastical plane, if we say that the "churches" are both united with God but are divided between themselves, we do not speak the truth. For, if both are united to God they would also be united to one another, since unity in the Church is in and through Christ.

Based on this new teaching from the Patriarch(ate), some maintain that a "false union" has already been forged. Most dismiss this claim straightaway. It is true that the common cup, at least officially and openly, was not at stake in Jerusalem or immediately anywhere. However, a type of "false union" has undeniably been established on the level of ecclesiology. For, when the mysteries of a heterodox confession are recognized per se, as the very mysteries of the Church, and, likewise, their bishops are accepted and embraced as bishops of the One Church, then have we not already established a union with them? Have we not a union both in terms of recognizing their "ecclesiality" (i.e., the One Church in Rome) and in adopting a common confession of faith with respect to the Church?

If we recognize their baptism as the one baptism, it is inconsistent not to recognize the Eucharistic Synaxis in which their baptism is performed. And if we recognize their Eucharist as the One Body, it is both hypocritical and sinful not to establish Eucharistic communion with them immediately.

It is precisely here that the untenable nature of the Patriarchate’s stance becomes apparent. The fact that the Church has never accepted inter-communion with Catholicism witnesses not to just some tactical decision or conservative stance, but to her self-identity as the One Church and to her view of Catholicism as heresy. If this were not the case, it would be as if we are playing with the mysteries and the truth of the Gospel. As St. Mark of Ephesus famously expressed it, the "cutting off of the Latins" was precisely because the Church no longer saw their "church," their Eucharistic assembly, as if in a mirror, as expressing the "Catholic" Church in Rome. Their identity was no longer that of the Church, but of heresy.

From all that has been written here, it should be clear that there are eternal consequences from every new departure from "the faith once delivered," and the new ecclesiology is no exception. By ignoring the contemporary voices of the Church—from St. Justin Popovich to the Venerable Philotheos Zervakos, to the Venerable Paisios the Athonite—those who went to Jerusalem espousing the new ecclesiology are leading their unsuspecting followers out of the Church and those already outside further away from entry into the Church.

This new ecclesiology is the spiritual and theological challenge of our day to which every Orthodox Christian remains indifferent to his own peril, for it carries with it soteriological consequences. In the face of a terribly divisive and deceptive heresy, we are all called to confess Christ today, as did our ancient forbearers in the days of Arianism. Our confession of faith, however, is not only in His Person in the Incarnation, but His Person in the continuation of the Incarnation, the Church. To confess the faith today is to confess and declare the unity of His divine and human natures in His Body, the one and only Orthodox Church—unmixed, unchanged, undivided and inseparable (ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως). [Oros of the Fourth Ecumenical Council].

“Good War” and “Bad Peace”: Love According to the Church

From here.
-------------------

(A translated excerpt from the second chapter of Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis’ book Inter-religious Gatherings: A Denial of the Gospel and an Insult to the Holy Martyrs)

Ecumenistic and Syncretistic attempts to define the love which we ought to have for others demonstrate a lack of discernment and confuse that which is clear – that is to say, the unanimous view of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.  It is certainly true that God is Love and that He shows this love to all, both the righteous and the sinful, and it is also certainly true that this universal, all-embracing love ought to be manifested in our lives since this is the chief mark of a Christian.  This love, however, must not contradict truth and piety – it must be united to the truth – for any other love is false and hypocritical.  It must embrace its neighbour not solely as a bodily, biological being, but as a spiritual entity; it must embrace him with a view to eternity, and must be concerned above all for eternal things and not for worldly and transient things.  This love must, then, concern itself with the salvation of the other.

Since salvation cannot be achieved when one is found in delusion and heresy (and particularly if one remains there egotistically), the Church, following the example of Christ and the Apostles and acting out of love, not hatred, prohibits communion with those in heresy, thereby pedagogically leading them to a consciousness of their delusion while at the same time protecting others.  It is, then, out of love for those who have fallen into heresy that we deride heresy and delusion, which are impersonal, while we manifest this derision with pain of soul.   The sweet and gentle Jesus Himself – the friend of harlots and tax collectors, the Prince of Peace and love – took a whip and drove from the temple those who had changed it into a profiteering venture, just as the Pope has twisted the spiritual character of the Church, changing it into a worldly, economic power…

Let us stop hiding other agendas behind the word ‘love’ – agendas which cannot be reconciled with the word itself.  A wide variety of ways exist for us to exercise our love. We can feed those who hunger, clothe the naked, give hospitality to foreigners, and visit those in prison and the sick.[1]  We will not change the Gospel and the Holy Canons which teach us not to associate with heretics.  Are we the ones who are to teach Christ and the saints what love is?  The saints are the ones who know how to define these things: we are the ones who confuse them.  And this, the highest of all virtues!  On the basis of this virtue, then, the Church teaches that a “good war” exists, when it is waged against the impious, heretics and blasphemers.

Similarly, “bad peace” exists when it comes from an indifference and contempt of faith and piety.  This “good war” for virtue and piety was taught by Christ Himself when he declared that the Gospel will divide and distinguish men.  Those who follow Him must be ready to confront hostility even within one’s own family.  We must not deny Christ, the Truth, simply to avoid conflict which in this case is feigned and false since it does not include the agreement on the most important issues, that is, of spiritual things.  In what other way are we to interpret Christ’s saying:  “Never think that I came to cast peace on earth; I came not to cast peace, but a sword.  For I came to divide in two a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies shall be those of his own household”?[2]

Saint John Chrysostom says that peace and harmony are not always good when these are directed against God, fostering vice and sin.  For true peace to prevail the diseased portion must be cut off, that which rebels must be set apart.  God wants the harmony of all with piety as the foundation.  When men are irreverent, they provoke war:  “Since the physician too in this way preserves the rest of the body, when he amputates the incurable part; and the General, when he has brought to a separation them that were agreed in mischief. Thus it came to pass also in the case of that famous tower [Babel]; for their evil peace was ended by their good discord, and peace made thereby.”[3]  Saint Gregory the Theologian praises the clear and brazen “good war” even against clergy when it comes to matters of the faith.  He numbers himself among the combatants and he summarizes this with his well-known saying concerning “good war” and “bad peace”:  “Yea! Would that I were one of those who contend and incur hatred for the truth’s sake: or rather, I can boast of being one of them. For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God.”[4]  Therefore, love without piety and truth is false, pseudo-love.

[1] Matthew 25:34-36.

[2] Matthew 10:34-36.

[3] [T.N.]  Chrysostom. Homilies on Matthew. 35.[1].

[4] Gregory the Theologian.  Oration 2. [2].

Source: http://lessonsfromamonastery.wordpress.com/

Yoga and Meditation

From here.
-------------------------------------

Monk Arsenios Vliagoftis, Graduate of Theology and Philosophy,
Commissioned by the Sacred Metropolis of Cassandria on matters of heresies


Source:   "DIALOGOS" magazine, issue No.22 (2000)

http://www.oodegr.com/english/anatolikes/boudismos/yoga_meditation.htm

"....They are contrary to, and irreconcilable with, Orthodox Christian ascesis, especially with Prayer..."

Our times are times of extreme spiritual confusion and apostasy from the Will of God. The father of this condition is the devil, who uses the people that he seduces into fallacy in order to succeed in his homicidal plan. This confusion is cultivated mostly by groups belonging to the so-called "New Age of Aquarius". Their basic dogma is that "all religions are the same; all of them are paths that lead to the same objective" - so they say.  However our Lord Jesus Christ Himself refutes them, when He says in the Gospel: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life" (John 14:6).  Consequently, the paths to salvation are not many, but only one alone: Christ and His Church.

These heralds of confusion identify Christian prayer with yoga and meditation, which are techniques of oriental religions and occultism. With what will follow, I believe that this confusion will be cleared.

 

Ascesis has been legislated by our very Lord Himself, in the sacred Gospel.  Ascesis is the means for reaching the purpose of Christian living, which is to rid oneself of passions and become united with God (theosis by Grace).  Among the kinds of ascesis are fasting, night-vigils, prayer, sincere repentance and confession, humility; the severing of one's own will by being obedient to the will of God; by  not trusting our own nonexistent powers but only God's power; by attributing to God all good things and whichever progress we make on the path of virtue while putting the blame on ourselves for our sins. Along with these, we should add the study of God's word and the conscientious participation in the Sacraments of our Church - especially in the Sacrament of repentance and confession and the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist.  Ascesis is not only for monks and clergy, but for every Christian, as clearly observed in the sacred Gospel and the lives of the saints of our Church.  This path of ascesis was the path followed by the millions of saints of our Faith.

Essentially, ascesis is Man providing the "I want to" from his part; the "I can" is provided by the Almighty God from His part.  In this way, the ailing person is cured of sin. This kind of healing is achieved only inside the spiritual hospital called "Church".  For the cure to be achieved, ascesis is imperative.

Within the Orthodox tradition of therapy, ascesis is not seen as a technique. It is not a sum of practices either.

On the contrary, it is our sincere response to God's love. In other words, to do what is humanly possible to cleanse the inner self, so that the Grace of God might come to reside within us.  After all, it is God Who makes the first move to meet Man, and not Man who seeks to find God. And so, we now come to a crucial point.

There are certain similarities between Orthodox ascesis and the ascesis practised in the non-Orthodox sphere, which can impress someone who stops at the apparent similarity of trees with regard to their foliage, but cannot see the differences in their trunks, their roots, and especially their fruits.

Prayer is the soul conversing with God. One that is very familiar to the monastic tradition is the Jesus Prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me"); it has been cultivated and is still being cultivated by all God-loving souls, and not just by monks.

The external similarities of the so-called psychosomatic method of mental prayer with the techniques of meditation have given rise for much to be written on the topic, especially in recent years.  We should not forget here, that it is the fraudulent article that always mimics a genuine one.  The devil is able to transform himself even into an angel of light for the sake of misleading...

So, what is the so-called "psychosomatic method" generally comprised of?  Basically, the following:  The individual is seated on  a low stool with his head bent forward so that he can focus on a spot on the chest, slightly below the heart, and then tries to coordinate his breathing with the Jesus Prayer, on whose words and meaning he tries to focus his mind and warm his heart with them. However this is not suggested as a recipe - whether by all the teachers of the mental prayer, or by all those who would like to study it.

(We must also not forget that although the Prayer is of help, it is not an end on its own.  However, this detail will be tackled further along.)

On the other hand, meditation is defined by the Hindu guru Sathya Sai Baba as "the method from within which the mind learns to concentrate" (Sri Sathya Sai Baba, "Meditation", Sri Sathya Sai Publications, Athens, 1984, p.8, as quoted by the late fr. Anthony Alevizopoulos in his book "Meditation, or Prayer?", p.56).

 

In this relating of the mental prayer to meditation, a dishonest attempt is observed. It is the attempt to make it appear as though we have two paths - albeit different - but deep down closely related, which lead to the same objective - that we supposedly have two different traditions which however essentially describe the exact same experience. Unfortunately, even professors of Orthodox Theological Schools - as for example prof. Savvas Agourides - maintain this view (see article titled "The experience of divine light by Orthodox Hesychasts and enlightenment in Zen Buddhism" - an introduction to the Conference on God and God's Equivalents, organized by the Council of the World's Religions in Assisi, Italy, on the 16th May 1990).  The explanation is that Mr.Agourides is unfortunately a member of the "Unification Church" of the Korean pseudo-Messiah, Sun Myung Moon.

Naturally, this attempt to create confusion lies within the syncretistic framework in which the so-called "New Age of Aquarius" envisages things.  As mentioned earlier, they preach that "everything is the same", in order to mislead and proselytize those who lack any support elsewhere.  Deep down however, they themselves do not actually believe in this statement of theirs, because they are convinced that their faith belongs to the New Age, and that consequently they are in a higher, more evolved level than we Christians are. (According to their assertions, we have remained stuck in the Olden Age, that is, in the "Age of Pisces" which was -according to them- the "age of Christianity"!)

We could say many more things about the Christian Orthodox prayer's perception of God, Mankind and the world, on which it is based. On the other hand, we could say equally many things regarding the perception of God, Mankind and the world that Yoga and meditation presupposes. These two perceptions are entirely contrary to each other and entirely irreconcilable.  For us Christians, God is a Person; He created Man out of Love - Man also being a person.  God also created the world out of Love and cares about it, just as He cares about Man, even more so.  On the contrary, according to the religions of the Orient and the "New Age", God is an impersonal hyper-consciousness and identifies with the universe. In other words, we have here a "pantheism".   Likewise, Man is also - according to them - like a drop that needs to be dissolved in the ocean of that impersonal God-universe.  Freedom and responsibility do not exist, according to the anti-Christian perception of the "New Age".  They assert that everything is determined on the basis of the blind law of karma and reincarnation (which of course is not a law, but a religious belief of oriental religions and of occultism). According to this fallacy, the soul after our physical death supposedly enters another body - regardless if it is a human's or an animal's. It can supposedly even enter a plant or a rock, given that everything is the same in its essence, according to their theory.

With the above, we consider this important parenthesis closed.

The Orthodox placement - on the fallacious view that meditation and prayer are supposedly the same - is as follows:  Reading from the book "The Power of the Name" by His Eminence the Bishop of Diocleia, fr. Kallistos Ware, professor of the University of Oxford:

«Besides similarities, there are also differences. All pictures have frames, and all picture-frames have certain features in common; yet the pictures within the frames may be utterly different. What matters is the picture, not the frame. In the case of the Jesus Prayer, the physical techniques are as it were the frame, while the mental invocation of Christ is the picture within the frame. The ‘frame’ of Jesus Prayer certainly resembles various non-Christian ‘frames’, but this should not make us insensitive to the uniqueness of the picture within, to the distinctively Christian content of the Prayer. The essential point in the Jesus Prayer is not the act of repetition in itself, not how we sit or breathe, but to whom we speak; and in this instance the words are addressed unambiguously to the Incarnate Saviour Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Mary».


And he continues:

The Jesus Prayer is not just a device to help us concentrate or relax. It is not simply a piece of ‘Christian Yoga’, a type of ‘Transcendental Meditation’, or a ‘Christian mantra’, even though some have tried to interpret it in this way. It is, on the contrary, an invocation specifically addressed to another person — to God made man, Jesus Christ, our personal Saviour and Redeemer. The Jesus Prayer, therefore, is far more than an isolated method or technique. It exists within a certain context, and if divorced from that context it loses its proper meaning.

And he continues:

The context of the Jesus Prayer is first of all one of faith. The Invocation of the Name presupposes that the one who says the Prayer believes in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour. Behind the repetition of a form of words there must exist a living faith in the Lord Jesus — in who he is and in what he has done for me personally. Perhaps the faith in many of us is very uncertain and faltering; perhaps it coexists with doubt; perhaps we often find ourselves compelled to cry out in company with the father of the lunatic child, ‘Lord, I believe: help my unbelief’ (Mark 9:24). But at least there should be some desire to believe; at least there should be, amidst all the uncertainty, a spark of love for the Jesus whom as yet we know so imperfectly.

Secondly, the context of the Jesus Prayer is one of community. We do not invoke the Name as separate individuals, relying solely upon our own inner resources, but as members of the community of the Church. Writers such as St Barsanuphius, St Gregory of Sinai or Bishop Theophan took it for granted that those to whom they commended the Jesus Prayer were baptized Christian, regularly participating in the Church’s sacramental life through Confession and Holy Communion. Not for one moment did they envisage the Invocation of the Name as a substitute for the Sacraments, but they assumed that anyone using it would be a practicing and communicant member of the Church. (from the book, pages 66-68).

And to supplement the above thoughts:

Our aim in praying is to communicate with the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, and this communication certainly cannot be put into molds in order for us to be joined with Him (without this union abolishing our personal otherness), whereas with meditation, the aim is to dissolve the individual Self, like a drop of water dissolves in the ocean of "universal hyper-consciousness", which is not a person.

In meditation, one does not address any specific person that he is linked to with love; instead, one addresses the Self, in the belief that he himself is in essence God.  This of course is a demonic deception and fallacy, which, in the desire to impose it, they have misinterpreted and twisted the very words of Christ: "The Kingdom of God is within us"  (Luke 17:21), regardless that this quote does not imply that Man is God by nature - as the misled New Agers fallaciously believe and proclaim. What it implies is that when one is baptized, the uncreated Divine Grace (the Holy Spirit) resides inside him, and that whoever has Divine Grace inside him, has a foretaste of the Kingdom of God from now.

 

This closes the brief parenthesis.

Meditation therefore is not a move to abandon the self, or a move to be rid of one's egotism - in other words, a move of love; rather, it is a self-centered short-circuiting action.

In meditation, one concentrates on a so-called meditational object.  According to the followers of meditation, this could be the form of Buddha, a candle flame, or any other object (and we might add, why not the form of Lucifer, if that helps to "inspire" and "assist" one's meditation).

When they who exercise meditation approach Christians in order to proselytize them, they tell them that during meditation, they can likewise concentrate their attention on Jesus Christ.  And that is the way they cultivate confusion; they give a different meaning to the term "Christ". To them,  Jesus Christ is not the perfect God and perfect Man as we believe Him to be. They refer to Him as just another one of the many other "great teachers", but above all they claim that He is a "state" within us! They say that we are all "Christs by nature".  But we Orthodox do not believe in the demonic lie that we are supposedly Gods by nature; we believe that we struggle with the help of God to resemble Christ and that we consequently become God-like by God's Grace, the way the Saints are.  The difference is huge.  In the case of meditation, they promote the diabolical lie of self-salvation, as opposed to the case of praying, where a person becomes sanctified within a communion of Love and subordination to the one and only, Holy, Triune God.

The supporters of meditation also make reference to the «surpassing of the meditational object».

 

But this supposed «surpassing of the meditational object», is entirely foreign and irreconcilable to the Orthodox Prayer.  To us, Jesus Christ is not a meditational object, nor is it our aim to surpass Him in order to reach a "state of pure consciousness" or a "deeper awareness of the Self" (also in the book by fr. Anthony Alevizopoulos "Meditation or Prayer?").

Another point we must stress is that with the techniques of meditation, one elevates the self to extreme heights of pride, whereas with the Prayer, one humbles the self, one does not snub others and in fact, by having succeeded in getting to know one's own self thoroughly well and having experienced the presence of Divine Grace, he will consider himself as the worst person there is - even worse than reasonless animals. "Even lower than all of creation", as we read in the book of Elders (the "Gerontikon").

When the person meditating believes that in essence he is God, he is not in a state that will allow him to utter the words "have mercy on me" - the key words of the mental prayer. In other words, the follower of the dogma of "I want and I can" of the New Age "positive thinking" is unable to humble the self.

Besides, meditation in the long run only leads the one who meditates into a state of self-hypnosis; his perseverance in becoming joined to the object of his meditation (which is the chief aim of meditation) is nothing more than a case of fantasy; a fantasy which - according to the Orthodox ascetic therapeutic regimen - needs to be marginalized.  This movement within the sphere of fantasy (or rather, within the sphere where real and fantastic are confused) can reach the point of generating situations that belong to the area of Psychiatry. An example is the case of a follower who attempted (with his "power of the mind" as he believed) to stop a train. The result naturally was the loss of his life.  There is a plethora of similar outrageous examples.  The demonic element naturally assists in all of these situations.  For an in-depth examination of this "positive thinking" movement, I would recommend the book by the late Fr. Anthony Alevizopoulos, "Self-awareness, self-realization, Salvation".

Ascesis is not a technique. This becomes apparent with the comparison between the mental prayer and meditation. It is not a means by which we can extort God's freedom. Ascesis in the Orthodox tradition is not an end in itself. It is a means. Our aspiration with ascesis is to mortify our passions, and not harm the body. Abba Poemen in the "Gerontikon" had said:  "We were not taught to be body-wreckers, but passion-wreckers" ("Asteras" publications, page 101).

Given that ascesis is not an end in itself - as stressed earlier - that is why the Orthodox do not seek to see lights or visions, or to have 'experiences' or to perform miracles.  Wherever and whenever a case of "vision-worship" or "miracle-worship" appears, we need to know that these are definitely deviations from the Orthodox phronema (conscience) and ethos.  An Orthodox will deny the "experiences" that the devil is ready to offer, "here and now" and without being asked (let alone when asked).

There is a vast gaping chasm between a true prophet (that is, an Orthodox Saint) and an occultist sorcerer, fakir, conjurer, or a psychic/"medium".

To open a small parenthesis here, I would like to briefly quote the basic points of these differences, as analyzed in the late Fr.Anthony Alevizopoulos' book, "Occultism, Guruism, New Age" (pages 282-286):

1.  A prophet, a Saint, is not self-appointed; he is appointed by God.

2.  A true prophet is conscious of his insignificance, whereas a sorcerer, a conjurer, is full of demonic self-importance.

3.  A true prophet does not open a "business for services rendered", nor is he invited by people; he goes to them.

4.  The true prophetic word is usually unwelcome by those to whom it is addressed, and it provokes - not flatters - them, and

5.  The content of the true prophet's message is not new; it is old, and has been forgotten.

So, to return to the matter of visions and "experiences", we might add that:

The Grace of God may of course visit the purified and worthy ones, however and whenever it deems it beneficial either for them or for the edification of the Body of Christ, that is, the Church.  However, these experiences cannot be extorted, nor are they an end in themselves.

The Saints counsel us to seek repentance - which is likewise a gift of God - and which, according to Saint Isaac the Syrian, is loftier than all other virtues, «...for its opus can never be finished; it is befitting to everyone, to both sinners and the righteous, who wish to attain salvation» (Homily55 On Passions, publisher Hieromonk Joachim Spetsieris, p.220). So, it is repentance that we should be seeking, and not the ability to work miracles - which, if we lack humility, can seriously harm us or even destroy us.

 

The manner in which the Saints avoid the temptation to desire "experiences" is by maintaining a humble conscience.

 

In the bios of the late Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain - who was reposed in 1994 - the following incident is mentioned:  One evening as he lay awake praying, he thought that the ceiling of his hut was about to open wide and that Christ was going to appear there and bless him.  "My God, who am I to be so worthy as to behold You?" was the humble thought that immediately came to his mind, upon which, the vision that the devil was preparing to show him vanished like a flash.

The criterion for the verifiability of Orthodox ascesis is that it should be done conscientiously (a detail that the Elder Paisios stressed especially) and with love, with humility and discernment, and without of course following after our personal will - in other words, that it be done with obedience and in fact a "joyous obedience", to remember the words of another great contemporary holy Elder that is now reposed: the Elder Porphyrios.

One may perhaps easily perform five hundred prostrations while preserving his own will, his own opinion, his own judgment, and placing trust in himself.  But, to perform only a hundred prostrations with obedience is far more difficult, because in that case, the evil one places impediments and wages war against him, whereas in the first case, the devil actually empowers and reinforces him.

The difference between Orthodox ascesis on the one hand and the demonic "ascesis" on the other can be seen in the narration of the "Gerontikon" that refers to Abba Makarios the Egyptian. Let's listen to it:

«Once, when Abba Makarios was walking back from the marshes to his cell, laden with palm fronds, he was accosted on the path by the devil holding a sickle.  And although he attempted to strike the Elder, he was unable to harm him.  So he remarked:

"I find a lot of resistance in you, Makarios, making me unable to harm you. And yet, whatever you do, I also do. Do you fast? I too eat nothing. Do you hold night-vigils? I too do not sleep at all. Yet you have one thing that I don't."

"And what is that?" Abba Makarios asked him.

And he replied: "Your humility. That is what incapacitates me!»

(«Gerontikon» in the modern Greek rendition by Vas.Pentzas, ASTERAS publications, p.152).

Of everything that has been mentioned so far, I believe that Orthodox ascesis and especially Prayer, does not have any similarity or affinity in essence to yoga and meditation which are cultivated by oriental religions and the groups of the so-called "New Age of Aquarius".  Those who say otherwise are either misleading people by cultivating that New-Age confusion through heresies, or themselves fall prey to that confusion.  The only safe way for one to not be trapped by heresies is to belong consciously and organically in the Orthodox Church, which is the sole Ark of Salvation for mankind, as it has preserved unadulterated the Gospel and the tradition that the Holy Spirit bequeathed us through the Holy Apostles and their successors. Only then will he be sheltered by Divine Grace, enlightened by the Holy Spirit and guided safely towards Salvation.

Translation by K.N.