Great-Martyr Kyriaki of Nicomedia (Trisagion Films)

Another daily "short" for Trisagion Films:

 Great-Martyr Kyriaki of Nicomedia 

http://trisagionfilms.com/2014/07/07/great-martyr-kyriaki-nicomedia/

For further reading on her life and martyrdom: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriaki_%28martyr%29 

http://www.antiochian.org/node/18926 

http://www.dormitionpgh.org/tidbits/ayiakyriaki.asp 

~Logic and Language~

Are you a lover of logic or language? Both? Requiring no previous language experience, these sites offer challenging exercises in both areas--growing your ability to grasp the various structures, sounds and nuances of language through logical deduction.

The Linguistics Challenge:

(Similar to Oxford's undergraduate admissions test for the Faculty of Linguistics, Phonetics and Philology, these puzzles challenge your ability to observe the function and patterns of language. If you have a firm grasp of English grammar and a passion for logical puzzles,

these puzzles will be addicting.)

http://lingclub.mycpanel.princeton.edu/challenge/

The Great Language Game:  

(Do you find yourself subtly intruding and intently listening to the conversations of others, attempting to pinpoint where exactly they come from, what exactly their language is? If so, this is the game for you. Currently featuring 78 different languages, your inner analyst will be challenged in a quest for identification.)

http://greatlanguagegame.com/


  

Liturgics - Sacraments: The Who Not the What

(One the final papers I wrote for this previous school year. It was a paper which required an interview with a clergyman, but just for a short time the priest consulted for the Orthodox perspective shall remain anonymous. Constructive criticism is desired!)

The Who Not the What

Throughout time, humanity has highlighted certain objects, dates, and people--all of whom are deemed as holy (hieros/agios/sacrum).  A “holy” thing could range from “that which is set aside for a special purpose” to “that which is perfected” to “that which participates in the energies of the supernatural/uncreated/divine.”  Within Christianity specifically, encountering holy objects, people and events is inevitable: Saints, feast days, the Bible, and the Sacraments.  The sacraments (or Holy Mysteries) stand as a central focus of many, if not all, Christian traditions.  However, the Holy Mysteries themselves have been defined and handled very differently since the beginning of the Church.  Out of the varying perspectives on these Mysteries, the two most prominent and perhaps influential are those of the Eastern and Western Churches--more specifically, in the context of this paper, Calvin and Eastern Orthodoxy.  Where much of the West defines the Holy Mysteries as signs, symbols and covenants, the Eastern Orthodox Church approaches them as “mysteries” of which we cannot totally define, but can participate within.  Calvin is sorely misrepresented and misunderstood by many inside and outside of Calvinism today.  Given these things, the Eastern Orthodox “phronema” and John Calvin’s contribution has been examined via textual evidence in order to explore the “spermatikos logos” found in Calvin’s sacramental theology and to introduce Orthodox sacramental theology as being a full and communal “phronema” on the Holy Mysteries.

Calvin offers two similar definitions for a “sacrament” in its most general sense.  One is that a Holy Mystery is “an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of His good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety toward him in the presence of the Lord and of his angels and before men (Bk. IV, Ch. XIV, pg. 1277).”  On a more condensed note, he also says that a Holy Mystery is simply “a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward Him (pg. 1277).”  In general, Calvin looks upon the Holy Mysteries as indicative of Salvation and agents of the Holy Spirit, but not entirely necessary for Salvation. For he says of the Bible, “God’s truth is of itself firm and sure enough, and it cannot receive better confirmation from any other source than from itself (pg. 1278).”  Many people interpret Calvin’s words to mean that the Holy Mysteries are merely signs, but this is far from what Calvin truly believed.  Although he did perceive them as outward signs (which can appear lifeless), they also were characteristically mystical due to the communication of God’s grace through them.  In addition to this, he firmly believed in sacraments as covenantal things. Like the covenants in the Old Testament, the sacraments “point to Christ.”  Yet, Calvin was insightful enough to go beyond even this to say that “Christ is the matter or substance of all the sacraments, for in him they have all their firmness and they do not promise anything apart from him.”  In essence, the sacraments from Calvin’s perspective can be divided into two categories--the outward sign and the inward mystery: each being distinct from the other, but capable of being united under the preaching of the Word of God, through faith and by grace. 

According to the Orthodox, Calvin is close to the truth, but not entirely there.  He has all the pieces of a mirror shattered by Catholicism, but he does not have the tools to put that mirror back together to gain a full reflection of the truth. He has the sandy ground of the Enlightenment and the untrustworthy glue of rationalism (orthologistis), not the rock of Holy Tradition and the superglue of communion.  In the Orthodox Church, “sacraments” and “mysteries” are considered synonymous terms.  However, in contrast to Calvin, “mystery” is preferred due to the depth of meaning which accompanies it.  For a “mystery,” in Orthodoxy, is considered something outside our realm of understanding--that is, outside of time--and yet it has managed to pierce time and space in a way that causes us to acknowledge it.  Christ’s Incarnation is considered the greatest “mystery” or sacrament due to the phenomenal act of the Creator of time entering time itself as 100% man and 100% God.  Either “Christ is the only Holy Mystery, for all Mysteries are Him, or all things are Holy Mysteries, for He is in all places” and according to this paradox, Mysteries take on a different identity in Orthodoxy compared to Calvinism.  They are no longer events or things isolated to merely the Church, but part of a lifestyle and a “cadence” of living in Christ, who is present through these Mysteries, as the focus of one’s life. As to whether or not the Holy Mysteries are necessary for salvation, if our ultimate goal is to become Christ-like and the Holy Mysteries are specifically given to us in the Bible as things done in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19) and His life, then why not use them?  How can they not be salvific, if they were instituted by the One who is salvation?  Anything which brings us closer in communion with Christ is necessary for salvation.  Thus, the Holy Mysteries are necessary for salvation for those who are capable of receiving them.  There are natural exceptions for those who are incapable.  After all, if we are dealing with a Holy Mystery--something outside of time--we cannot put restraints on it as Calvin did.  For the Mysteries are necessary for Salvation only in the sense that they restore communion, but Necessity itself does not lord over any aspect of the Mysteries. Lastly, Calvin focuses heavily on the communication of the Mysteries rather than participation with them. His perspective is restrictive to God’s grace and he puts yield signs and traffic lights on anything that resembles mystical participation (not communication), which is, to him, characteristically Roman Catholic.  However, the Orthodox perceive the Mysteries as things which can be received, communicated and participated in simultaneously.  They are not simply a one sided communication, but a two-sided communion. They do not simply “point to Christ,” they are Christ.  

Calvin also focuses with intensity on “cornerstone” sacraments such as Baptism and the Eucharist in order to channel his more general theology through specific sacramental examples. According to him, “Baptism is the sign of the initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God’s children (Ch. XV, pg. 1303).”  Although he addresses quite firmly the materialistic and gnostic heresies of the Roman Catholic Church regarding Baptism, he also spends time reiterating how Baptism is a sign of repentance and union with Christ.  It demonstrates repentance and represents union.  It is a claim to “regeneration” and a union with the generations of God’s children.  However, it stops at this.  Torn between what a sacrament is and who it imparts, Calvin does not go beyond simply stating the evident communication of God’s grace and presence in the sacrament and goes on to meticulously define the nuances of definition itself with regard to the exterior nature of the Mystery. 

The Orthodox do not necessarily disagree with Calvin on Baptism either, but as with most of the Holy Mysteries, Calvin does not have the “full picture.”  The Orthodox agree that it is a physical indication of repentance, but they go even further to say that this “metonia” (the word for repentance, meaning a complete change of physical, spiritual and mental direction) is a participation in the event of Christ’s Baptism, thus emphasizing a real connection with Christ through baptism.  The engrafting is not simply symbolic, but mystically communal--not simply a communication from God to the people and from the person to God.  It is both (not bits and pieces of) the outward sign and the inward reality.  It is a sustained and accepted paradox.  In addition, Calvin focuses on the exterior sign representing an interior, unseen reality, but the Orthodox perceive the interior reality as being the source of the equally legitimate exterior reality.  Calvin reasons from the outside in; the Orthodox reason from the inside out. 

Lastly, Calvin shifts his focus toward the Mystery of the Eucharist as he responds to the heresies which saturated the Roman Catholic Church and he brings up the famed “spiritual presence” of Christ in this specific Mystery.  Calvin’s ideas on this subject were highly influenced by the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church of his time period, so his views on this must be gracefully understood in the context of the extremities he experienced.  Communion was no longer communal.  Instead, it was a power play of the hot blooded popes who spiritual starved people due to their impertinent defiling of the Mystery and arrogant deification of themselves.  Thus Calvin conceived the idea of “spiritual presence” and to this day, it characterizes his theology from all other theologies.  He says that, “when we see wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must reflect on the benefits which wine imparts to the body, and so realize that the same are spiritually imparted to us by Christ’s blood (Ch. VXII, pg. 1363).”  Careful not to fall into the heresy of transubstantiation or complete gnosticism, Calvin tries to walk a high wire between the utterly real and the utterly spiritual in his theology regarding Holy Communion.  However, in his balancing, he delineates boundaries and logical constraints to something known since the early church to be a “mysterion”--something which is certainly not illogical, but simply beyond our logical abilities.  In addition, he puts a weighty emphasis on Holy Communion as being a sacrifice and our participation in it as being a reflection of that sacrifice. It focuses primarily on Christ’s death, not on the life found through His death. 

There is a significant difference between Calvin’s focus and perspective on the Eucharist and the common Orthodox perspective; the first, misplacing emphasis and the second, correctly placing emphasis on this Mystery.  Concerning his misplacement of emphasis, Calvin states that the preaching of the Word of God is the center of worship and that sacraments are illegitimate without this preaching. The Orthodox also hold similar views about the importance of scriptural inclusion in the liturgy.  However, in contrast to Calvin, they center their liturgy on the partaking of the Eucharist.  Because of this, the Orthodox and Calvin are both simultaneously different and similar.  Both Calvin and the Orthodox focus on the Word of God with great energy.  Yet Calvin focuses on the Word as a what (scripture, preaching, etc.), whereas the Orthodox focus on the Word as a who (Christ, the Word of God, the ultimate communication of God’s grace).  By acknowledging the Word of God in His being through the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Word of God in its written form naturally follows.  This broad difference has multiple implications.  For example, Calvin instructs us to “reflect” on the Mystery, limiting our participation in the mystery to merely the mind.  The Orthodox endeavor to be present entirely in the Mystery as Christ is also entirely present--with the mind, the body, and the soul--for it is the whole body which needs life and healing.  There is also a sharp divide between Calvin’s use of logical distinction and rationalization (which ironically limits a full understanding of the Mystery) and the acceptance of the incomprehensibleness of the mystical event which is found in Orthodox sacramental theology.  Knowledge is not as important as relationship and explanation is not necessary for participation.  Lastly, as mentioned, Calvin heavily emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.  The Orthodox would also agree here--the significance of Christ’s body and blood is found in the Crucifixion. However, the Orthodox do not use the Eucharist to focus on what was done, but Who did it and who it was done for. 

With a “phronema” that sets relationships above facts, the Orthodox concern themselves first with the person and second with the mind--for with the first comes the second.  Calvin, on the other hand, in a defensive position against the Roman Catholic corruption of the sacraments, fell into the trap of heavily focusing on the mind and rationalism as tools of healing, due to the abuse to the person he had the misfortune of witnessing.  Based on these foundations, Calvin’s thorough rational analysis of both Baptism and the Eucharist stand in sharp contrast with the Orthodox understanding of the personal and relational aspect of the Holy Mysteries. Calvin, by no means, was entirely wrong.  In fact, his perspective is strikingly similar to Orthodox sacramental theology, requiring subtle differentiation to highlight the actual differences, but he only had half of the picture.  With the advent of the age of reason and the subsequent importance placed on mind and man, Calvin’s writings, although wise at the time, have become a movement to elevate humanity and to “box in” God Himself.  For the Church, according to the Early Church Fathers, was and is a hospital for sinners, not a philosopher’s forum and its sacraments are the medicine given by the Doctor and received by His patients. 

Works Cited and Sources

Fr. (Anonymous) Ph.D. (in Patristics) and Protopresbyter 

Calvin, John. The Institutes of Christian Religion. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminister John Knox Press, 2006. Print.

The Orthodox Study Bible. ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 2008. Print.

Help Support Trisagion Films!

       I have begun working with Trisagion Films, an Eastern Orthodox informational website, as a co-writer for their growing organization. From iconography, to current events, to pilgrimages, to music, the goal of the Trisagion Films team is to expand the availability of Orthodox information through a technology-based ministry of videos, photos, and articles. 

I will share my work on Trisagion Films via this blog on a regular basis. 

Please help support them and check out their website: http://trisagionfilms.com/

Glance at two brief articles I have already written:

St. Cosmas and Damian of Rome:

http://trisagionfilms.com/2014/07/01/sts-cosmas-damian-rome/

 

St. Juvenal of Alaska:

http://trisagionfilms.com/2014/07/03/st-juvenal-alaska/

Icons - Liturgics

(An old school assignment of mine... posted to answer some questions for a good friend.)

Icons.  Immediately, you think of one of two definitions - either the two dimensional Saints in history textbooks, or simply an image which is familiar to you.  Taking the second definition, we can say icons are all around us;  the likeness of a celebrity plastered on a wall; the swoosh of the Nike symbol.  But, what about the first definition?  The gold-inlaid icons of old Christian Saints are unfamiliar to many.  For many, especially in America, they rarely appear in daily life. Why should we bother with them, then? They are just pictures, right?

They are not just pictures.  Their range of influence goes beyond the age of the Early Church, directly into modern Christianity.  The ancient purpose of icons still applies today - to act as windows and reflections of what they depict.  As Christians, our stance on icons is important to many aspects of the theology we hold.  It is a tell-tale to not only our stance on the material world, but also a direct reflection of our view on the Incarnation. In this case, it is especially beneficial for you to press out and explore the realm of icons and their uses.  Whether you choose to support icons or not, understanding the original purpose of them will be helpful in personal clarification.

Icons have caused and still do cause controversy among Christians.  The many views on icons can be summarized as simply the iconoclastic position (being against icons) and the pro-icon position (in other words, those who regard icons for spiritual use). 

Iconoclasm is usually associated with Reformed and Protestant branches of the church, although it is originally rooted in Nestorianism.  However, Calvin is most recognized for his contributions to iconoclasm.  In his Institutes he says: 

Hence it is perfectly clear that those who try to defend images of God and the saints with the example of those cherubim are raving madmen. What, indeed, I beg you, did those paltry little images mean? Solely that images are not suited to represent God's mysteries (Institutes 1.11.3). 

A majority of the modern Protestant church is much less extreme than Calvin.  So, much divide exists within Protestant branches on how icons should be used, their purpose, and their biblical standing.  Some groups say icons are wonderful pictures to depict bible stories, but their use and value ends there.  Others are against having any icons in their church walls, in their worship, or in their bibles period.  Also, an enormous amount of Western/Protestant Churches contain stain-glass windows, which are innately icons themselves. 

On the contrary, Eastern Orthodox are in support of the use of icons.  Although Eastern Orthodox Christianity did experience two iconoclastic movements in both 730 and 814 A.D., it has since never swayed from the traditions of icons and supports them vigorously.  Mount Athos, a mountain in Greece, is covered with only monasteries and contains a sum of 20,000 icons in its vaults for liturgical use. This is just one example that icons are a vital and unquestionable part of Orthodox worship.  The Second Council of Nicea gives a brief summary of the past, present and future Orthodox views on icons:

        For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented.

In addition to what was said there, the Council of Nicea also said that icons themselves represent an Incarnation, they should be given reverence, but not worship, and they honor and represent the image they depict.  

Christ’s incarnation and the act of communion (in the sense of  both fellowship and the sacraments) are two vital parts of Orthodox theology.  In fact, they are also the original basis for the Early Christians and they considered these two sources as things which grew them in faith. So, I propose that the use of icons is nurturing in spiritual growth.

I come from a Calvinist background, and as my family and I began our transition into Orthodoxy, icons were a great confusion to me.  They were lovely pictures, but I didn’t understand why they were given such reverence and honor.  It made me uncomfortable that a material thing could hold so much spiritual meaning.  One day, as I was roaming throughout the church, I stopped in front of an icon of the Mother of Christ.  It was a peculiar image - she had her arms outstretched in a position of worship and in the place of her bosom was a ornately decorated circle with an image of the Christ child inside.   Around him were stars of different sizes, resembling the night sky on a clear summer’s night.  Fr. Barnabas found me staring at this icon.  Mary’s position represented her saying, “...be it unto me according to thy word.”  The reason the Christ child was depicted in a circle of stars, was to communicate that He is the ruler of the universe - uncontainable.  And, the reason this cosmic scene was placed in Mary’s bosom was because she “contained” the “uncontainable.”  In that icon, she represented what a true Christian should do - take Christ into their heart. Or, like the icon, “contain” the “uncontainable.” After less than ten minutes of him talking with me, I understood more about Christ’s nature, the role of Christians, and the importance of Mary in the Church - just through an icon. 

That is just one thousands of icons which hold the same meaning and importance.  Icons properly     represent and communicate the Incarnation of Christ and just by their very nature, reveal the incarnation as a truth to us.   Icons are physical things, but they communicate things which are transcendent to us - like Christ - He was 100% man, and 100% physical, but at the same time, He was still the uncontainable and 100% God.   As St. John of Damascus said, “I do not adore the creation rather than the Creator, but I adore the one who became a creature, who was formed as I was, who clothed Himself in creation . . .”

Also, icons support communion and fellowship.  At the very least, icons are are form of epideictic rhetoric - trying to portray and communicate that which cannot fully be communicated.  They are messages and windows.  Using or showing honor to an icon does not stop at the icon itself - it goes beyond that - it has deeper meaning, a connection to the person/scene being represented.  This seems like a complex theological topic, but it is actually something we experience daily.  

Do you have a framed picture near you?  A photo of your family, or sweetheart in your wallet?  Look at it - it represents a reality to you.  In and of itself, it is not the real person, but it connects you to someone who is or was very real.   One time a priest was speaking to a group of teenagers about icons - in the middle of the conversation, he removed a picture of his little girl from his wallet.  He kissed it and whispered, “I love you, sweetie.”  The class smiled and awed at the act of fatherly love.  Then he ripped the picture up.  They stared at him indignantly - full of righteous anger.  Then he said to them, “My children, icons are no different than that photo.  You were horrified upon seeing that photo ripped up.  Like that photo, icons also connect us to something special, something real, and something that we cannot comprehend hurting.”

Icons used in the traditional liturgical services of Eastern Orthodoxy may not be familiar to many, but icons themselves are not unfamiliar to the Christian world - in any branch of the church.  Stained glass windows, picture Bible’s, even small films - all those, although not Traditional, are icons.  Windows to the past, teachers of theology, and communicators of the Divine.  

Icons are a source of nurturing and growth for the spiritual life because they properly represent the  vital theology of the Incarnation and support and participate in a fellowship and communion with past and present Christians. 

Imagine yourself in the catacombs of Rome.  You are a young child, and since you can first remember this has been your home.  You quietly walk down a narrow hallway towards the main cave, in which a Liturgy is secretly about to begin.  Among many others on the stone walls is a crude icon of Christ.  Mother has always taught you that Christ really did become a man and He had a real face and real hands, but at the same time He was God.  And, this icon was really the only portrayal of Christ you’d ever seen in your life, the only evidence you had ever been given that He was both man and God.  The icon was your teacher, it was precious to you, and through it, you understood Christ and had a connection with Him.  That icon was a prayer.  You never prayed to it, of course.  That’s idolatry.  But, you prayed through it.

There will always be conflict, especially in Christianity, about how much is too much in regards to the material world and Divinity.  But as C.S. Lewis once said, “God likes matter. He invented it.” And icons represent, and will continue to represent that balance - that incarnation - that reflection of the Creator, through His creation. 

Music as Medicine - Liturgics

Music as Medicine - Liturgics 

In class today, after listening to Bach’s 2-3 hour “Matthäus-Passion” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVo6YUlwfeA), the topic of “church music” and its various implications, categorizations, and applications became the center of discussion. This, of course, can become a heated topic in the context of both Western and Eastern Christianity.  From old southern spirituals to the youth pastor’s jazzy rendition of “How Great Thou Art,” the realm of Western Christian music spans an enormous range of genres, theologies, and preferences--all serving different purposes. Eastern Christianity, on the other hand, stands strongly in musical tradition, maintaining the original “church music” with impressive consistency, for the most part. 

After addressing the basic categories of past and present church music and providing a vague definition of music as “that which expresses the inexpressible” we began to consider:  Which one is more “correct?” Is there a “correct” church music or utilization of it at all? What is the purpose of church music? What are the criteria to fulfill this purpose? 

With these questions came even more diverse answers, spanning from “No, no musical or theological standard exists in church music” to “There should be no church music at all.” In the end, though, we all agreed that church music, as a whole, fulfills these three basic purposes: 

-To include all the senses (the entire body) in worship, through the use of sound. 

-To unite the church in the participation of worship

-To unite the church theologically

Within this, though, the subtleties of opinions rise: what theology do you use? What kind of music do you use? Does one person lead the music or is it congregational? And so on... 

And then, someone played the devil’s advocate... he added a secondary purpose for church music: evangelism and sharing the gospel. In essence, the purpose of church music was simply to evangelize. 

This, of course, is too simple a purpose--the music is meant just as much for the congregation as it is for those outside of it. However, his point was fascinating. Can one of the purposes of church music be evangelical?

If so, then it seems to support the idea that church music itself must conform, or sympathize with the modern culture’s fluctuations in musical preference in order to make Christianity more “appealing” and “inviting,” thus seemingly strengthening evangelism. 

However, this is far from the case. It is true that one purpose of church music is evangelical, but that does not justify cultural conformity nor sympathy. In Romans 12:1-2, Paul states: 

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

Our spiritual service of worship (and thus our music) is instructed not to be of this world’s aimless desires. What does this look like? It looks like music which is not only solemn, but consistent in its technicalities and theology, while allowing for the participation and interaction of the congregation. Liturgical music fits this bill perfectly. After all, what does “liturgy” mean? It means the “work of the people.”

And yet, with this, how do we reconcile liturgical music and the presented evangelical purpose of it? In a world full of hundreds of musical genres and preferences, wouldn’t traditional music be a “turn off?” Wouldn’t contemporary music be more inviting and thus successful? 

No, in fact, traditional/liturgical music is the most effective form of evangelism. For, Christ refers to himself as the physician: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” (Mt. 9:12) And since the church is His bride, she is also His hospital. This is something the Early Church Fathers emphasized greatly: the Church is a hospital.

If this is the case and if her (the Church’s) music is meant to be evangelical, then it must be assumed that her music is medicinal. Thus, her music cannot conform to the world, which is saturated in passions and carnal desires. For a medicine is meant to heal, it is not meant to promote sickness. A hospital and its medicine restores physical normality and consistency to a person’s life. In the same way, the Church’s music ought to restore spiritual normality and consistency to a person’s life. 

Liturgical music, specifically the Byzantine tradition of Church music, fulfills this characteristic of theological and spiritual consistency. Of course, the modern world in its pomp and glory may not find such staunchness attractive and such tradition appealing, but when it comes to Church music, “a spoonful of sugar” does not help the medicine go down. The Physician’s medicine requires no sweetener or supplement, it is, in its purest form, literal “music” to His patient’s ears. 

Theosis: A Path of Purging, Praxis, and Pondering

Hello all! I recently wrote this paper for an History/Literature/Theology (Omnibus) class and want to share it!  Please remember, the terms--especially the Eastern Orthodox ones--are being used vaguely and broadly for the purpose of the assignment (which was to discuss sanctification from a biblical, historical, and literary perspective, with a special focus on the current book we were reading: The Divine Comedy--all under a 2,000 word limit).  To gain a fitting and respectful understanding of Praxis, Theoria, Theosis and the Nous requires more in-depth study, explanation and application--a lifetime, really.  So, I highly recommend reading some of the links in my bibliography for further pursuit of the terms, as I was not able to expand on them in this paper. 

(Icon of The Theotokos of the Unburnt Bush, "Dante Following Virgil Up the Mountain" Gustave Dore, Superman Emblem, Illustration from Pilgrim's Progress) 

Theosis: A Path of Purging, Praxis, and Pondering 

It is said that you become most like the five people with whom you spend a majority of your time.  Why is this?  Humans were never created to be alone.  They only know themselves in the eyes of another—shaped by the people with whom they commune. In the same way, Christianity is not a religion of individuals.  Instead, Christians understand themselves as incomplete if they do not know themselves in the eyes of their Savior and the Church (His Body).  To become Christ-like is to keep company with Him and His Church--it is to gain a knowledge ofwho He is (theoria) and dedicate time and energy towards Him (praxis) in order to achieve union with Him (theosis).  The possibility of achieving theosis is distinctly possible for anyone since God’s Grace and Mercy pours in abundance over the world (John 12:32).  History and literature swell with stories of people moving towards perfection (wholeness) by achieving a personal knowledge of Christ through practice and work.  The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri’s magnum opus, is an example of one of these stories as it explores the concept of unification with the Lord through faithful practice and divine contemplation.  Praxis, for example, is union with God through not only faith, but the correct practice of faith, since as St. Maximus the Confessor once said, “Theology without action is the theology of demons."  Theoria, on the other hand, is a spiritual contemplation and knowledge of the divine which is not limited to merely the mind (gnosis), but extends throughout the entire person.  Dante indirectly examines these two terms and their relationship to becoming more Christ-like throughout his cantos.  His work, along with illustrations from the Bible, history and culture, show that unification with God (theosis), through the purging of sin utilizing praxis and theoria, is the natural purpose of man.

The Purge and the Dance--

Dante succinctly opens the second book of his Divine Comedy, Purgatorio, by saying, “I shall sing about that second realm where man’s soul goes to purify itself and become worthy to ascend to Heaven” (Dante 1).  Here, he sets the theme for the rest of the book—the theme of struggling and wrestling with one’s sins in the process of drawing closer to God.  Throughout the entirety of purgatory, the souls within work towards the purging of their sins through not only faithful action (praxis), but divine contemplation (theoria).  The top seven terraces especially demonstrate this as their occupants experience a physical catharsis through the presence of a whip of virtue (the Holy Virgin as chastity in the 7th terrace) and a bridle of sin (Pasipahe and the bull as lust in the same terrace).  However, they also experience something which is somewhat equivalent to theoria through their benedictions and prayers (such as “Blessed are the pure in heart”).  Although each canto and terrace within Purgatorio can serve as an example of sanctification through praxis and theoria, the 7th terrace is especially applicable.  In it, the spirits walk in flames.  They “must burn within the fire: the cure of flames, the diet of the hymns—with these the last of all their wounds is healed” (273, Canto V). 

Like the rest of the souls in purgatory, these souls must exert diligence in order to progress.  2 Peter 1:5-8 expands on this image of “diligence” in the midst of struggle and praxis towards unification with God.

“Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This passage is often associated with dancing—a step by step flow of movement to create a work of art.  In the same way, Christians, struggle by struggle, action by action, work towards theosis--the completed work of human potential and purpose.  Achieving the qualities Peter mentions, ushers in a theoria—a true knowledge—of Christ.  Similarly, the souls in purgatory climb a ladder, virtue by virtue, quality by quality, to attain that knowledge and union in Paradisio. 

John Bunyan, a 15th century version of Dante, composed his own Christian “comedy” about a pilgrim as well: Pilgrim’s Progress.  The very title gives evidence of its purpose—that is, to demonstrate the Christian life as a path of purification and unification with the Lord.  One passage from the work is particularly relevant to 2 Peter 1:5-8 as well as the seventh terrace: 

“. . .The Interpreter took Christian by the hand and led him into a place where was a fire burning against a wall, and one standing by it, always casting much water upon it, to quench it; yet did the fire burn higher and hotter” (Bunyan 128-9)

Christian, after seeing this, queries what the vision means.  The interpreter explains to him that another man stands opposite the wall he sees pouring oil into the fire to nourish it.  This portrays the attacks of the devil on the fire of faith and Christ’s abundance of Grace to strengthen and nurture the struggling Christian in his path.  However, the fire represents not only zeal of faith, but a purging of the soul.  As fire removes dross from the silver to purify it (Isaiah 1:25), so is the human soul purged through praxis, theoria and Grace.  From here, a parallel can be drawn to the Theotokos, who is considered an icon of the burning bush from Exodus.  She contained “Fire” (Heb. 12:29) and yet she was not consumed, since she was pure.  Given this, it is of no surprise that the Virgin Mary is the “whip” of terrace seven—the terrace of fire.  In the same way, praxis and theoria are the fires which burn away the dross of our hearts, purging us so that we, too, can be pure and attain unification with God.

Simulacra and Divine Contemplation-- 

Canto XXX in the Divine Comedy is especially important to understanding theoria.  In it, the pilgrim Dante is reunited with Beatrice only to receive a stern reproof from her concerning howhe has spent his life and what he has contemplated in that life.  He “wandered from the path that leads to truth, pursuing simulacra of the good, which promise more than they can ever give” (325).  “Simulacra” is a key term in this excerpt.  Coming from the singular Latin word “simulacrum,” simulacra can be simply translated as “likenesses,” “similarities,” or even “simulations.”  However, throughout the centuries it has gained a much darker connotation.  A simulacrum of something is a faulty portrayal or misrepresentation of that thing.  In essence, a simulacrum is the opposite of an “icon.”  It is the clouding of clear vision and the distortion of the truth.  In many ways, it is detrimental to attaining theoria, which requires clear vision of truth for divine contemplation.

In this case, it is important to recognize simulacra in the world and to detach from it, to block it, to avoid it at all costs.  To be “in the world,” but not “of the world” is to move away from the simulacra—the faulty portrayals—of truth.  Romans 12:1-2 is a call to renewing the mind towards its proper focus, away from the distortions of the world:

“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. . .”

Through this verse, St. Paul implores the Christians in Rome to attain theoria by presenting themselves as sacrifices for spiritual service (praxis) and to transform their minds (theoria)—looking outside of this world, yet remaining in it.  However, the word for “mind” in this verse does not mean the pithy organ that resides in the human skull.  Instead, it comes from the word “nous,” a word that cannot be translated into simply one English expression.  When St. Paul says, “I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (1 Cor. 14:19), the word for “mind” is “nous.”  In other words, it is the core of man’s existence.  It is the “energy of the soul” and when it “enters the heart and acts within it, there exists a unity” within the soul (Metr. Nafpaktos 35).  This is the part of the man in which theoria must be attained.  Grasping theoria within the nous affects the rest of the man, giving life and revealing truth through divine contemplation.  Beatrice criticizes Dante for not focusing on his “nous” and thus being distracted by the simulacra of the world--being in the worldand of it.    

A modern example of learning to block simulacra can be found in the recent movie “Man of Steel.”  Cal-al or “Clark,” as he is known on earth, is aware from a very young age that he is notof the planet Earth, but that he certainly resides in it.  From a young age, his human parents instruct him to learn to focus his great powers and abilities, since someday they must be used for a greater good.  Through mistakes and successes (praxis), Clark learns to focus (theoria) his power in such a way that gives him greater strength and understanding, as well as a deep sense of communion with humanity and his own world.  Of course, this movie was not didactic storytelling, but it stands as one of the many examples of people learning to “block” the distractions around them and focusing on a more important task. In this case, the task was to focus his energies and thoughts on a greater purpose. Christians, too, must focus their energies and thoughts towards a greater purpose: theosis—unification with the Lord. 

The implications Dante makes about the purging sin reverberate throughout time and literature, constantly echoing the same words: praxis and theoria; diligent work and personal knowledge.  From the fiery seventh terrace of purgatory to the fictional world of Superman, man’s redemption is painted in the combination of both action and thought for success and redemption.  The path to Salvation is difficult.  It is tedious. It takes patience in labor and humility in contemplation, but in the end, the fruits are sweet. The work of becoming Christ-like—theosis—is best expressed by C.S. Lewis when he says, “The command ‘Be ye perfect’ is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. . . The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said.” (Macmillan, 1952, p. 174, Mere Christianity).

Works Cited

Metr. Hierotheos, Nafpaktos. Orthodox Spirituality: A Brief Introduction. Fifth Edition. Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 2008. Print. 

Alighieri, Dante. The Divine Comedy, Volume #2: Purgatory. London, England: Penguin Classics, 1985. Print.

The New Inductive Study Bible - NASB. Eugene, OR: Precept Ministries International, 2000. Print. 

Bunyan, John. The Pilgrim's Progress. United States: Answers in Genesis, 2006. Print. 

Metr. Dr.Yazigi, Paul . "East-West Dialogue: Reference to Monasticism." Theoria & Praxis According to St Gregory Palamas. N.p., 2004. Web. 19 Dec 2013. <http://www.alepporthodox.org/files/writings-en/writings/006-Monasticism_in_Palamas.pdf >.

"Theosis." Orthodoxwiki. N.p., 2012 . Web. 17 Dec 2013. <http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis >. 

Fr. Romanides, John . "What is the Human Nous? Chapter 1 from Patristic Theology." Orthodox Christian Information Center . N.p., 2008. Web. 17 Dec 2013. <http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/patristic-theology-romanides-chapter-1-what-is-the-human-nous.aspx>.