OT: Struggle with Idolatry (era of Ahab) Continued.

Dialogue with World Religions

by Paulos Mar Gregorios

Introduction

This paper seeks only to attempt a preliminary answer to three simple questions related to Christians engaging in dialogue with people of other faiths and religions.

1. What theological and practical considerations lead us to undertake dialogue with people of other faiths and religions?

II. In what spirit, with what attitudes and expectations, should we as Christians enter in to dialogue with people of other faiths and religions?

III. What important lessons can be learned from the experience so far in dialogue with people of other faiths and religions?

In answering these questions, we should take into account the problems created by
(a) Theological difference between Christians.

(b) Sociological and cultural differences between various situations.

This paper has been written from the theological background of the Orthodox Tradition, but with some sympathy and understanding for the Protestant and Roman Catholic Traditions as well. The background of the writer of this paper is one of a Christian minority amidst a preponderant Hindu majority, and a Muslim minority that is at least five times as large as the total Christian community, not to mention the Sikhs who are almost as numerous as the Christians, and various other smaller minorities like Buddhists, Jews, Parsis, and Jains. But an effort will be made here to look at the issue of dialogue with people of other religions from the perspective of post-Christendom Europe and America.

1. Theological Considerations

The tone for the western Christian approach to unbelievers was, perhaps, set by Augustine of Hippo. When Nectarius of Calama wrote to him about the contradiction between Augustine’s assertion that man can do good deeds only through the grace of God in Christ, and the common experience that unbelieving pagans sometimes do show forth some splendid virtues, Augustine’s reply to Nectarius was simply that the virtues of the pagans were but splendid vices.

If we were to say the same thing about the many instances of unbelievers in our secular society sometimes putting Christians to shame by their superior spirit of unselfishness and self-sacrifice, we would be regarded as bigoted and narrow-minded. We cannot write off a Gandhi or a Marx or a Lenin as simply pagans with splendid vices. Augustine’s loyalty to the doctrine of an exclusive grace that come to Christians alone for the doing of good deeds goes both against our experience and the spirit of our age.

But a similar exclusivism and bigotry was more recently manifested by reputable modern Protestant theologians like Karl Barth and Hendrik Kraemer. Ever since Tambaram 1938, Protestant Christians who want to engage in dialogue with people of other faiths have found themselves inhibited by the contention that God’s revelation comes only to Christians, and that others are so totally in error that there is no point in talking to them.

I do not know of any respectable Roman Catholic theologians who have revived Augustinian intolerance in so virulent a form. Theologians like Karl Rahner, with a broad-minded Existentialist, neo-Thomist orientation, have been quite open to the possibility that other religions can be a positive factor in the under standing of divine revelation:

The divinely intended means of salvation for the individual meet him within the concrete religion of his actual existential milieu and historical contingency, according to God’s will and forbearance (which so intermingle, that they are no longer clearly separable)

The position stands in stark contrast with Karl Barth’s dictum in the Kirchliche Dogmatik, 1/2 para 17:2, entitled Religion als Unglaube:

Wir beginnen mit dem Satz: Religion ist Unglaube; Religion ist eine Angelegenheit,

man muss geradezu sagan: die Angelegenheit des got tlosen Menschen.

The context for his imperious intolerance against liberalism would permit no simply the fact that the fight against liberalism would permit no loophole through which some kind of “natural revelation” would get in. More illuminating is the fact the Jerusalem international missionary conference had posed the problem of mission and unbelief in that peculiar form. According to one rather liberal with influential Anglo-American faction at Tambaram, the enemy was secularism with its denial of God and revelation, and all those opposed to secularism. This meant that the appeal of Jerusalem would be that Christian missionaries join hands with the adherents of other religions in fighting the common enemy-- secularism. The issue was only raised and not resolved at Jerusalem 1930. It was only in Tambaram, India, 1938, that the battle was really joined between the Anglo-Americans under the leadership of the Anglican Richey Hogg identifying the enemy as secularism, and the continental theologians under the leadership of the Dutch Reformed Hendrik Kraemer locating the enemy as these other religions so full of human error, superstition and ignorance. For Kraemer, it was fatal for Christianity to ally itself with the other religions. Secularism was less of an enemy than those religions. It was this line that Kraemer’s disciple Theodore Van Leeuwen further developed in his Christianity in World History, where the argument is that secularisation is God’s action, that it is the form in which the Gospel goes on, and that the world religions which have resisted the Christian mission will not be able to stand up against the sweeping torrent of secularisation.

Van Leeuwen was not against all non-European cultures. If only these cultures would rid themselves of the obnoxious religious element, then Van Leeuwen would be very charitable towards them:

Once the religious myth has been blown away, there is room for the traditions of the non-Christian cultures to bring forth their treasures.

Some of my Hindu friends detect a highly reprehensible element of European cultural arrogance in such a statement. What it says to him is in effect, “Oh yes, once you are sufficiently trained in our western secular civilisation and you shed your Hindu religious identity, we will co-opt you into a world civilisation which will of course be dominated by European secularised culture."

Whatever theological or other reasons we as Christians may have for engaging in dialogue with people of other faiths, we should be explicit and honest about them. If we are engaging in dialogue with the secret intention of converting them, as many religious people in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism suspect, then our partner is bound to be wary and our dialogue inauthentic.

The attempt here is merely to present first the Christian theological basis for dialogue with all human beings, and then to advance a few simple arguments to show that we should begin dialogue without much more dilly-dally with theoretical reflection.

It is not necessary in this connection to start with any concept of Uroffenbarung as Paul Althaus5 does, distinguishing it from Christus offenbarung. Neither does it seem essential to follow the line of Carl Heinz Ratschow, and posit some kind of Hervortreten or stepping forth of God which is then regarded as being apprehended by people of other religions without any presuppositions about General or original Revelation or about the salvific values of other religions.

The basic theological position may be set forth thus:

Christ is the first-born of Creation, the head of all created reality. He loves not only all men, but also all that is created. I am united to Christ in Baptism and Chrismation. My mind is the mind of Christ. Therefore my love is non-exclusive and open to the whole creation. Nothing is alien or threatening. Love and compassion for the whole creation is the characteristic of Christ. The Church as His body shares in this love and compassion in faithfulness, integrity and openness with sympathetic understanding. This is sufficient and compelling reason for me to engage in dialogue with people of other faiths. It is love in Christ that sends me to dialogue.

This seems to give quite sufficient theological basis for dialogue. If you want additional arguments, here are a few:

(a) If dialogue with “secular” man is justified on the ground that he is my neighbour, then “religious” man is also equally my neighbour and I must communicate with him.

(b) If theology has as its task the understanding for what God does in the world and how he deals with human beings, then we must know something about man’s present state as created. Fallen and redeemed. Such an understanding of man cannot be built upon knowing European or Christian man alone. The vast majority of humanity belongs to other religions and what they experience and aspire to should be part of our knowledge of humanity. Present western theology is defective precisely because of its defective and partial understanding of what constitutes humanity. Dialogue can help in remedying this defect.

(c) What God does in history cannot be confined to Christians alone. How Christ has affected people who are not members of the Christian Church is an important aspect of God’s action. The great religions of the world have been profoundly affected by exposure to the person and teachings of Christ. This work of God can be understood only in-patient and trusting dialogue with people of other faiths.

(d) There is some truth in the statements of some liberal theologians like Ernst Troeltsch who advocated “replacement of missionary attacks on the other world religions by cross-fertilization” for cultural exchange and mutual stimulation. This need not be based, as it was in the case of liberalism, on some value neutral acceptance of the empirically given without any overriding criterion of judgement. As one expose oneself to people of other religions, one’s own judgmental criteria are transformed. One’s understanding of Christianity itself can be changed. It may not be so unwise to follow Paul Tillich’s advice to use the knowledge of other religions as a means “to penetrate into the depth of one’s own religion, in devotion, thought and action.”

In the depth of every religion there is a point at which religion itself loses its importance, and that to which it points breaks through its particularity, elevating it to spiritual freedom, and with it to a vision of the spiritual presence in other expressions of the ultimate meaning of man’s existence. This is what Christianity must see in the present encounter of the world religions.6

In other words, dialogue with other religions strengthens and stimulates our Christian faith.

(e) The Christian Church is an instrument of God for bringing humanity together in unity, creativity and righteousness. Such a unity can neither impose uniformity nor condone unrighteousness. It means a critical reconciliation of opposed elements in such a way that their creative possibilities are enhanced and released. What we are looking for is more than what the late Prof. R.C. Zaehner recommended-- namely the transition from a mere convergence towards a “Concordant Discord”7. What we need is more like what Pannenberg recommends -- the development of a Tradition that is rich in its diversity, conscious of its incompleteness, and always “open for the future in an unlimited way”. The Christian Church has to play its role as a unifying force among the various discordant elements in humanity. Religion is one of the most deeply rooted of these elements that divide man from man. By putting men into dialogue with each other, the Church would be contributing towards a rich and diverse creative unity of humankind.
One last word about the theological position. Roman Catholic theology itself has recently moved from what may be called the “proportion of truth” approach to other religions, which characterised the theology of the Vatican II decree on non-Christian religions. We cannot simply say that the Church has 100 percent of the Truth while other religions have varying proportions or percentages of the Truth. God is Truth, Christ is Truth, and the truth liberates. But it cannot be objectified and quantified. The new approach in Roman Catholic theology seems to be based on “the universal salvific will of God”. This is reflected in Karl Rahner’s writings as well as in the article of Fr. Eugene Hillman in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies:

Every religion serves God’s saving purpose in history, insofar as it offers its followers an awareness of their own inadequacies before God even when God may be only a suspected influence behind the immediate questions of human destiny. Every religious act is a saving act, insofar as it directs persons to a greater love for one another.

Fr Hillman does not assert that one religion is as good as another. Neither does he think that we have reliable criteria for evaluating “the comparative salutary and humanizing value of the countless religions of the world”. He is in fact simply reviving an earlier Protestant approach, the praeparatio evangelica approach when he states:

The fathers of Vatican II have clearly taken the position that non-Christian religions perhaps related to Christianity in somewhat the same way that John the Baptist was related to Jesus, or as Christians believe the Old Testament is related to the New?

This approach, which was characteristic of enlightened Protestant missionary policy in the pre- Tambaram days, was found to be too patronising to be acceptable to non-Christians. Even Raimundo Panikkar’s Unknown Christ of Hinduism is offensive to sensitive and intelligent Hindus for in claiming what is good in Hinduism for Christ, Christians are being imperialistic, patronising and superior, as the Hindu sees them. Fr. Panikkar’s statement that Christ came “to bring to its fullness every religion of the world” is seen as the “Christianity -- the Crown of all Religions” kind of haughtiness.

The other Roman Catholic approach, based on “the universal salvific will of God” is exemplified by H.S. Schlette and Piet Schoonenberg. Their position is that salvation of man is a-historical, that is, not limited to specific moments and individuals in history, but operating in history as a whole. (This is also the Pannenberg line). From this they go on to argue that God is actively being revealed in non-Christians through their historical religions. The line of Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan seems to be similar -- The grace of God is universally operative and open to all human beings; in all our knowing and willing we are reaching out towards reality and thus to the infinite Transcendent. Religion is an explicit reaching out to the in1finite, and that procures special grace are then socially objectified and systematised into organised religion, since man is a social being.

But most of these theologians, when pressed may deny that the religions have full salvific value; they are at best partial and preparatory. They would agree with Protestant theologians that Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation.

The position of this paper is that it is not necessary to raise and resolve these questions before engaging in dialogue. Christian love is a sufficient and compelling basis for entering into dialogue. There are other reasons of a more pragmatic nature, which push us into dialogue. This conclusion is extremely important for what follows in the next section.

If we pose any doctrine of God’s universal salvific will, we have two problems on our hand. What is the role of Christ’s incarnation in it? In what way do Christians share in this that others don’t?

II. Spirit, Attitudes and Expectations

The spirit in which one approaches people of other faiths is decisive for the outcome. This spirit is negatively and positively influenced by our attitudes and expectations.

If your basic expectation is eventually to convert your partner in dialogue to the Christian faith, it will inevitably entail certain attitudes and approaches on your part and certain inhibitions on the part of your partner which could make dialogue self-defeating. It is true that many of our friends in the other religions already suspect dialogue to be another devious technique of evangelisation. Dialogue cannot be an alternative for mission or evangelism.

Personally, I do not like to use the terminology of mission, since it is associated in my mind with western colonialism and imperialism. This paper would prefer therefore to speak about the relation between dialogue and evangelisation.

In religious dialogue, two or more human beings meet each other, with mutual trust and openness, each respecting the convictions of the other; the object is to understand each other in their varying religious traditions, and to be mutually helped in one’s own grasp of the truth.

In evangelization, the baptised believer in the Crucified and Risen Christ speaks to the unbeliever, on behalf of Christ and His Church, to declare the good news that in Christ Jesus God calls all men into the Kingdom through faith, repentance, baptism and the Christian life.

Evangelisation is accompanied by signs of the kingdom such as acts of love and compassion, miracles of faith, symbolic acts repudiating the values of the world and manifesting the values of the kingdom. But these acts should not be called evangelisation. Evangelisation is proclamation, annunciation, declaration of the good news that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and is made the master and Lord of all creation.

Evangelisation is a charisma -- a gift of the spirit (Eph. 4:1). No charisma except love is common to all members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27-30, 1 Cor. 12:19). Evangelism is the task of those who are endowed with that particular charisma. It should not be engaged in by people without the gift. Indiscriminate preaching by self-proclaimed evangelists has proved itself to be counter- productive in our time.

Dialogue and evangelisation are both tasks of the Church. Dialogue is not specifically mentioned in the New Testament. But it too is a charisma of the Holy Sprit for our time. The evangelist does the work of evangelisation in the name of a Christ as a member of the Body of Christ. The Christian engaging in dialogue with people of other religions also does so in the name of Christ and as a member of the Body of Christ.

It is conceivable that the same person has the gift for evangelism. Judging from experience, however, such instances are rather rare. Both are tasks of the Church, and the Church does not abandon one because she is engaged in the other. By beginning dialogue with people of other faiths, the Church does not give up evangelisation. But in both she maintains integrity and honesty. She does not use dialogue as a means of evangelisation. When she, through her chosen and gifted members, enters into dialogue with people of other religions, she exposes herself to the risk that these members may be influenced by the people of other religions. Being so influenced is normal in any undertaking that involves exchange and communication.

In engaging in dialogue with people of other religions, the Christian keeps in mind the following principles:

1. One does not hide one’s own faith; one is not ashamed to confess one’s faith when called upon to do so in dialogue.

2. One does not, however, use dialogue as a means of persuading one’s non-Christian partner to become a Christian.

3. One does not approach dialogue with any sense of superiority. One is quite happy, as a Christian, to put oneself on a level with one’s dialogue partners, as members of the same humanity.

4. One is genuinely interested in the life, faith, and aspiration of one’s dialogue partner. One respects the other’s convictions, and tries to understand the other positively wherever possible.

5. At those points where one has to be critical of the partner’s convictions, one does not hide one’s mind, but expresses the criticism with love, respect and courtesy. Dialogue should always be in love and truth, not in fear and dissimulation.

6. In dialogue one accepts the possibility that one’s own views may be radically changed by the dialogue. Only mature people who are not afraid of exposing themselves to persuasive presentations of other people’s religious views should engage in dialogue.

7. In preparation for dialogue, one should make a study of the religious scriptures, customs, ritual writings, practices etc.,

8. Dialogue cannot be a single act. It is a process of living together in openness to each other and genuinely growing together into a deeper understanding of reality.

9. Dialogue may lead to practical consequences -- perhaps to work together in a specific field or in a particular project; perhaps to manifest inter-communal harmony in some public way perhaps to issue joint statement, articles, publications.

10. Dialogue begun should not be broken abruptly. If abruptly broken, the resulting relation is usually worse than what it was before dialogue began.

III. Lessons from Past Experience

(1) Bilateral dialogue is always easier to handle than multilateral dialogue. When representatives of two religions speak to each other one may find that it is possible to agree on many points and to state the agreement in commonly acceptable terminology. But when several different religions are present, the task becomes difficult. If, for example, Orthodox Buddhists are present, it may be difficult to use God-language. If Muslims or Jews are present certain concepts like the unity of God and Man (“I and the Father are one”, “that they all may be one in us,” etc.) cannot be freely discussed with adherents of eastern religions.

Experience shows that bilateral dialogues should be more frequent and numerous, whereas multilateral religious dialogue should be a comparatively rare phenomenon. Multilateral dialogue can also be used for promoting inter-communal harmony.

(2) The deepest levels of communication between religions take place at the level of spirituality and worship. There are three basic levels:

1. Dialogue on common social or economic problems and about common projects and practical collaboration;

2. Dialogue on the theoretical or theological aspects of religion;

3. Dialogue in which the above two are transcended into the realm of entering into each other’s spiritual experience and group worship.

The level of skill and preparation required is higher as one moves from (1) to (2) to (3). Quite obviously (3) level is advisable only when the participants are theologically or theoretically trained. It is unproductive to have a theological discussion among the theoretically untrained. Even more skill and confidence are required when entering into the partner’s spiritual experience. It is possible to enter into a Muslim’s or Hindu’s experience of worship without compromising one’s own faith. A Christian’s worship can be directed only to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So when a Christian enters the worship experience of a Muslim who prays to Allah, it becomes necessary for the Christian to enter sympathetically into his worship of Allah as in fact identical with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There are important theological problems here which have not yet been sorted out. To whom are the Christian’s prayers directed? Can it be to the same God as the Muslim prays to?

Is the identity of the God to whom my prayers of a Muslim are directed dependent on his or my conceptual understanding of that God? If I identify the true destination of the Muslim’s prayers as the same God, the father whom Christians worship, does that imply my recognition that Muslim prayers are also authentic?

The problem becomes more complicated in the case of Hindu worship involving idols; even more problematic is Buddhist worship, which does not include the idea of God at all.

These theological problems not with standing experience shows that participation in each other’s spiritual experiences can be a deep and meaningful experience of dialogue.

This point of view, that encounter at the level of spirituality is more rewarding than theoretical dialogue, was ably put forward by the former Swiss Ambassador to New Delhi and Athens, Jacques Albert Cuttat (The Encounter of Religions). Ambassador Cuttat actively promoted such dialogues in India and Sri Lanka with some remarkable results.

Similar approaches have been practised also by people like Swami Abhishiktananda, by Murray Rogers and by Fr. Bede Griffiths among others. Fr. Griffiths has published his conclusions in an interesting book called Return to the Centre, where he argues that the closer you are to Christ, the less divisive appear the differences between Christians and adherents of other religions.

On the other hand, to many Christians whose hold on the Christian faith is primarily intellectual-theological, such encounter at the level of spirituality appears rather threatening. The fear of syncretism is often advanced as an argument against attempting such encounters.

This fear is not experienced by Christians who are spiritually secure like Fr Bede Griffiths. If our faith is threatened in dialogue with people of other religions, that seems to be an indication that our faith is either insufficient or inauthentic.

(3) The experience of dialogue has taught us that not everyone profits from it the same way. People who are emotionally and spiritually secure, who have a genuine desire to “fuse their horizons” (to borrow a phrase from Gadamer) with people of other religions and cultures are best suited to dialogue and derive most profit from it. Recent converts and those whose faith is still precarious or unformed may suffer from exposure to dialogue. It is therefore important for the Churches to prepare people who are spiritually deep, emotionally mature, strong and secure in faith, and endowed with the spirit of compassion and openness towards the whole of humanity, to participate in dialogue with similar people in other religions.

(4) Dialogue requires special skills in certain special situations. For example, dialogue between western Christians and the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt or the Ananda Marga of Hindus would be exceedingly difficult, and might give undue recognition to a fascist communal group which would extend its influence through such recognition. But dialogue between the World Council of Mosques would be of a different kind. Western Christians engaging in dialogue with a Saudi Muslim organization or Mummer Gaddafi’s Muslim spokesman would have to keep in mind the fact that these partners are actively engaged in financing anti-Christian activities in the Philippines, Malaysia and elsewhere. Yet a carefully planned dialogue may help to ease tension even between Jews and Muslims.

H. G. Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios Metropolitan

source: http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114&Itemid=236

The question of difference is a Western one...not Eastern

How Different is The Eastern Orthodox Church?
Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios

Several people have asked me this question in several different forms:

• Who are these Orthodox-- Protestants or Roman Catholics?
• What do they believe differently from the others?
• What is the difference between Orthodox and other Christians?
  Let me try some simple answers to these three questions.

Who are the Indian Orthodox?
First, both Roman Catholics and Protestants are Western Christian groups. The Orthodox Church is not Western Christianity. Eastern in origin, it was from the beginning open to influences from all cultures. In the first century, Christianity was primarily an Asian-African religion. Only by the 4th century did the Roman Empire become increasingly Christian. The Strength of Christianity in the early period was in Palestine, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Libya. We can make a list of the earliest Churches -- the Churches of the first century.

In the West, i.e. Italy: 2 Churches -- Rome and Puteoli (today Pozzuoli near Naples)
Western Greece: 5 Churches -- Nicopolis, Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica and Philippi.
Eastern Greece (Asia Minor, today Turkey): 15 Churches -- Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Troas, Miletus, Colossae, Perga, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe.
Syria and the East: 6 Churches -- Antioch, Tarsus Edessa, Damascus, Tyre, Sidon
Palestine: 4 Churches-- Caesarea, Jerusalem, Samaria, Pella
Cyprus: 2 Churches-- Paphos and Salamis
Egypt: Alexandria
Pentapolis (North Africa): Cyrene
India: Malabar

As you can see, only 2 out of 37 Apostolic Churches are strictly Western. If Western Greece and Cyprus are also regarded as Europe, then nine Churches are in Europe, while 28 are in Asia and Africa.
The Orthodox Church claims to be the true successor of all these Apostolic Churches, including the Italian Churches, which used Greek as their language of worship in that century. So the Orthodox Church is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. It regards itself as the true and faithful successor of the ancient Apostolic Church, and regards the Western or Roman Catholic Church as a group that broke off and went astray from the true tradition of the Christian Church. The Protestant Churches broke off much later (in the 16th century and after) from the Roman Catholic.
The Orthodox are today in two families -- the Oriental Orthodox family, to which the Indian Orthodox Church belongs, and the Byzantine Orthodox family, which is four times as large.
The Oriental Orthodox family has five Churches -- India, Armenia, Syria, Egypt and Ethiopia - three in Asia and two in Africa. Total membership is over 25 millions.

The Byzantine Orthodox family has over 100 million members -- in Greece, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Western Europe, America, Australia and so on. Their members are mostly Slavic, Greek or Roman in origin. But they are also regarded as Eastern, though they are a bit less Asian-African.
Thus the Indian Orthodox Church is a strictly Asian-African Church, an Apostolic Church in continuity with the ancient West Asian Apostolic Church. This Church was established in India in the very first century by the Apostle. St. Thomas, one of the twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. It is one of the 40 or so ancient Apostolic Churches of the world.

What do they believe differently?
The very question is a Western one. In the West a Church is defined mainly by what it believes, ie. by its doctrines and teachings. This intellectualist orientation of faith does not belong to the Eastern tradition.
The Orthodox confess the same faith as the ancient Church -- the faith as was later formulated in the fourth century in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople.
We object to certain later additions made by the Roman Catholics, for example the addition of the word ‘filioque’ in the Latin creed. They, for example, teach that the Holy Spirit, one of the Three Persons of the Trinity, proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque means ‘and from the Son’). We do not teach so. The son is begotten by the father; the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The words “begotten’ and ‘proceeding’ delineate the difference between the Son and the Spirit in their relation to the Father. In later centuries, especially after the fifth century when the Western Church broke from the Asian-African moorings, it misunderstood the word ‘proceeding’ as related to the coming of the Spirit in the Church on Pentecost. This coming, of course, is from the Father and the Son, but that is not what is meant by ‘proceeding’. The latter word denotes the eternal relation between the Father and the Spirit, and not the relation in time and history.

In the eternal dimension we cannot say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore ‘filioque’ is out of place, wrong and misleading.
There are other doctrines and dogmas which the Roman Catholic Church has added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed -- eg. the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and the dogma of the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The first two are wrong and the third is not dogma, for the Orthodox. We do not believe that there is any special miracle called Immaculate Conception connected with the origin and birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nor do we believe that the Pope or any other human being is infallible. As for the teaching about the bodily assumption of Mary, We do teach it, but not as some central dogma of the Church.
Nor do we believe that believing in the right dogma is the evidence of a true Christian. We put equal emphasis on the way of life, on the way of worship, on the way of disciplining oneself as on the way of thinking and belief.

What then is the difference between East and West?
It is not so easy to pinpoint the difference in words. It seems the difference is more one of ethos, of orientation, of spirit rather than of dogma or belief.
Let us state some of the more obvious differences. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, believes in a universal organizational structure for the Church with one particular bishop, namely the Bishop of Rome or the Pope, holding a unique position in the whole world. We Easterners do not accept any one bishop as having universal jurisdiction or authority. So the Orthodox have no Pope. What they have is really an Episcopal Synod for each local or national Church. The President of the Synod may be a Patriarch, a Catholicos, and Archbishop or even a Pope as in the case of the Coptic Church of Egypt. But no such Synod or its president can have universal jurisdiction over the Churches of other countries. Each local or national Church with its Episcopal Synod and Patriarch is autocephalous, ie. it has its own head, and does not look to any other Church to exercise authority over it.

This difference in turn is based on a more profound understanding of what we call the Church Catholic. The Church Catholic is not the Roman Catholic Church. It is the whole Church, in all time and space, in its qualitative and quantitative fullness. The universal Church is not the Church Catholic. The latter includes all those who have ever lived on earth as Christians in former times, ie. Christ and the Apostles, the prophets, martyrs, confessors, fathers, doctors, ordinary believers and so on. The universal Church is, of course, composed only of those now living. The Orthodox Church had no category called the universal Church. The attempt to create a category called the “ecumenical church” by the Constantinople Church, has been virtually rejected by the Orthodox tradition.

Now the Roman Catholic Church has something called the Universal Church, and the Pope is the head of this Universal Church. So, for them, the fullness of the Church means the Universal Church which is for them, the manifestation of the Church Catholic. Because they think this way, the local Church is only part of the Universal Church and cannot be autocephalous or having its own head. The local church is ever incomplete, according to this view, without the head of the Universal Church, the Pope, since the part is never complete without the whole. Hence the insistence of the second Vatican Council that
“The College or body of bishops has no authority unless it is simultaneously conceived of in terms of its head, the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor.... Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, the Episcopal order is the subject of Supreme and full power over the Universal Church. But this power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.” (Lumen Gentinum: 22)
This teaching the Eastern Orthodox regard as rank heresy, and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between the local Church and the Church Catholic. The Easterners believe that the Church Catholic is fully manifest in the local Church, where the people are in communion with the bishops of the Episcopal Synod. We do not regard the local Church as part, but as the manifestation of the fullness, of the Church Catholic. The error in the teaching of the Roman Church, we feel, is due to its breaking away from the tradition of the Church Catholic in the 5th century.

Neither does the Orthodox Church teach that the bishop or college of bishops alone exercise authority in the Church. Every baptised Christian shares in the kingly, priestly and prophetic authority of the Church, though the bishop has a certain fullness of spiritual power which others in the Church do not have. But the bishop separated form the Church is nothing. It is only in communion with the Church. With the college of presbyters and deacons and with the people that he exercises his power. The Orthodox Church is thus much more conciliar and communitarian in structure.
Neither did the Orthodox Church ever develop an aggressive or institutional mission such as Roman Catholics and Protestants have developed. The witness of the Orthodox is a quiet one, based more on worship and a holy life of love and service, than on preaching and proselytism. This lack of aggressiveness is often criticized by Western Christians as a lack of missionary fervour. But we know that the aggressive Western missionary movement is intimately linked with the economic, cultural and colonial expansionism of the West, and we would rather not be associated with such an aggressive and institutionalized mission.

The worship of the Church is the centre of the Orthodox ethos, rather than its mission. The mission follows naturally from true worship and feeds into it. It is in the eucharistic worship of the Church that the Orthodox have a foretaste of the Kingdom which is coming. To join with the angels and archangels in the adoration of the one True God and to rejoice in his presence of the Spirit through the Son-- this is the heart of the Orthodox ethos. The Orthodox Churches under Muslim or Communist oppression always survived because of this worship orientation.
The West separates action from contemplation, thought and prayer. For us it is in and from eucharistic worship that all action, contemplation, thought and prayer derive their significance.

source: http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=219

God is good

by Paulos Mar Gregorios from his Last Will and Testement

God is good. He alone is truly and fully good. He is good without mixture of evil; in Him all evils disappears. Evil has no place in Him, just as darkness has no place in the Light. He can do no evil. Evil does not come from Him. He did not make it. He gave freedom to His Creation; freedom to reject the God with which it is endowed, and thereby to choose evil. Evil is denial of created being itself, which cannot really be without being also good. In freedom is the root of evil. But evil by itself cannot be; it cannot exist, except when mixed with the good. Only the good can be. Being and the good are inseparable. When any being uses its freedom to deny and reject the good, it denies also being itself, for true created being is always good, like its creator.

If you ask me, “Who is this God, and where do we find Him?”, I can only say with all who have known God, that there is no way we can grasp Him with our concepts or express His being with our words. We can say many things about Him in a negative or metaphorical language. He is without form or body, without beginning or end, without limit or extension, neither in space nor in time, not needing to become or grow into something he is now not, and therefore without change or movement, not dependent on or derived from anything else, everything else being derived from and dependent on Him. Who and where are not questions appropriate for the One who is Eternal and Infinite. Where He is not, there is only nothing.

I am unhappy about using the masculine personal pronoun to refer to Him; God is not male, but using the feminine personal pronoun solves no problems, for he is neither male nor female, nor is He a neuter It. The Creator has no gender, which is an attribute only of the created order. He is Who He is, Who will always be, the Great I am. My human language offers me no appropriate pronoun by which to refer to Him. I will continue to say ‘He’ without thereby meaning that He is male.

From Him comes all good. All that is good not only comes from Him, but is also His presence. Where the good is, there God is present. I bow before the good, Wherever it shows up-in people of different faiths and religions, in people Who claim to believe in no God, in birds and animals, in trees and flowers, in mountains and rivers, in air and sky, in sun and moon, in sculpture and painting, in music and art, in the smile of the infant and in the wisdom of the sage, in the blush of dawn and in the gorgeous sunset. Where the good is, there is the kingdom of God. There God is present and reigns even when that presence is not acknowledged or recognised, though the Kingdom bolongs in a special sense to those Who have known Him and worship Him, dedicating their lives to total obedience.

If you ask me how is the good to be defined, I can only say that good, like God, is undefinable. But it can be discerned, recognised, praised and cherished, just as God can be. Good is what God is. He has been good to me. Out of nothing He has brought me forth. He keeps me From going back to the nothing that I have come from. He forgives me my sin and evil. The evil in me draws forth a sentence of death, but he annuls that sentence by His grace. The life that I live I regard as a double gift-the gift of existence and the gift of the new life that makes me a child of God. For He has come to us in His Son, and has become one of us, a human being in the created order, partaking of the earth, of flesh and blood, of matter in all its temporality and finitude. On that I have no doubt, even though many of the people whom I love and admire reject that faith of mine. I belong to Jesus Christ the incarnate Son of God, and therefore to His new humanity, without any reservation. I cannot compromise that faith even for the sake of good relations with people of other faiths.

In Him I put my trust. Christ is my all. Without him I am nothing at all. The life I live is Christ’s. I share that life with all those in Christ’s Body. I have no life of my own. I live in Him and He lives in me. Christ never forsakes me, even when I am rebellious, indifferent or thoughtless in my disobedience. His love stays steadfast even when my loyalty grows feeble and my ardor becomes tepid. He gives and He forgives, without stint or limit. Such love deserves nothing less than my all. Him I adore, Him I worship as God and Man, Him I hold as without peer, the only Begotten of God, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, One True God.

And Christ’s love is for all huankind, not just for Christians. It is for the whole of humanity that he has died, not just for Christians alone. He lives for the human race, and he is the lover and Saviour, as well as Lord, of the whole race of humankind. How can I then draw any limits to my love and compassion, or deny it to any group of human beings? Even those who regard themselves as my enemies I am not to hate or exclude from Christ’s love and compassion. That has been the basis for my approach to all sorts of groups, people of other religions, Communists, Moonies, and especially the white races against whom I can justly hold a thousand grudges.

Christ is for me much more than a great teacher of humanity, along with Gautama Buddha,Vardhamana Mahavira, Lao Tse, Mahatma Gandhi, Mohammed Rasool-Allah, Adi Sankara, Plato, Socrates, Moses, and Zoroaster. Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God who became son of Man, took on our sin and suffering upon himself, sacrificed himsel’f on the Cross, died and rose again from the dead to live for ever and to reconcile the whole creation to God in himself. He is the victor over sin and death, over evil and disintegration. In him everything holds together, and in him shall the whole creation, purged of all evil, be finally harmonised. This I believe, and I have no reason to hide my faith, though I do not talk about it all the time. I live by this faith. This is the source-spring of my actions. This is the hope that keeps me from despair and despondency, even when everything looks so bleak and gloomy in God’s world.

source: http://paulosmargregorios.info/Last%20Will.htm

The Angels

Written by His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas

Introduction

Through out the Holy Book, from Genesis to Revelation and in all the important events in it we read about spiritual beings called the Angels. Those Angels witnessed the creation of man, accompanied him in his glory and humiliation, in his rise and fall, in his sinfulness and righteousness. They escorted the Lord, God, along the way towards redemption.

Nature of Angels

The angels are heavenly articulate spiritual beings possessing intellect. They were created by God Almighty at the beginning of creation for glorifying the Lord, praising and ministering to him as could be inferred from God’s address to his servant Job:
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth…? When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job.38: 4-7).

Appearance

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describes the angels saying:

“Are they not all ministering spirits?” (Heb. 1:14).“Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire” (Heb. 1:7, Ps.104: 4).
It is believed that they are pure incorporeal souls. It is also believed that even though they are spirits, yet they possess gentle invisible aerial body with no ordinary human needs. “The countenance” of the angel, who rolled back the stone from the door of the Lord’s grave after his resurrection " was like lightning and his raiment white as snow"(Matt. 28-3).
Angels mentioned, however, in the Holy Book appearing with sundry bodies and various forms possess temporary bodies assumed to reassure people and encourage them to talk to them. Apostle Paul says of these bodies, " It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit….
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15-44-50).
Jesus Christ describes the Holy believers who are to inherit his eternal heavenly kingdom saying:
" But they, which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection". (Luke 20:35-36).

Number

Angels are not born. They neither marry nor are given in marriage. They do not procreate or become old, nor do they die. Their abode is heaven. They are sent as messengers to earth for ministering to mankind.
God created them in great numbers that only God Almighty knows of.
The Psalmist Said:
“The chariots of God are twenty thousand” (Ps. 68:17).
(Elisha, the prophet said to his servant who was scared when he beheld the huge number of his enemies: “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha” (2 Kings 6: 16-17). Daniel, the prophet said " I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him". (Dan. 7:9, 10).

Lord Jesus said to his disciple Simon Peter: " thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Matt. 26:53). And the author of Revelation said:
“And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne …and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands; (Rev. 5:11).
Church fathers, therefore, deduced that the number of angels was so huge and it outnumbered that of human beings and all other beings over all the ages.

POWER, ABILITY, FUNCTION
Angels outdo human beings in knowledge, learning, power and ability. Due to the perfection of their nature they are capable of predicting future inevitable events.
They have extensive wisdom but are not omniscient. God alone is omniscient.

The Psalmist said in his exaltation of the Creator.
“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor”. (Ps. 8: 4-5). The Psalmist addresses the angels saying:
" Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his Commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word". (Ps. 103:20).

Angels worship God, prostrate in adoration of him and keep, as it were, praising him day and night. They are always ready to fulfill his will and his Commandments. It’s through the angels that God, the invisible, gets in contact with man. “No man has seen God at anytime” (John 1:18). And God’s angels are standing before him at all times. Their faces are covered with their wings, the way they were beheld by Prophet Isaiah (Is. 6:1-4). God sends angels to our earth for taking care of the believers, meeting their needs, guarding and rescuing them from their spiritual or corporal enemies. The Psalmist addresses the believers saying " For He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone". (Ps. 91:11-13) and " the angel of the Lord encompeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them". (Ps. 34:7).

The Holy Book is full of services done by the angels to mankind in fulfillment of God’s Commands.
When God drove man out of the Garden of Eden " He placed Cherubim to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen.3: 24).
The power of angels and their authority, which is derived from God, is manifested here. “When the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it” (2Sam.24-16), and in (2king.19: 35) " the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred four score and five thousand".

The Lord God invested the angels with authority to control material elements, manage and guard them, yet God never permitted them to change Laws or Principles set by God, neither did God permit them change any procedures without His consent.
No material or human obstacles, no natural forces or laws can stand in the way of the fulfillment of tasks assigned to Angels by God. The Lord sent His angel to his servants Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and delivered them from the fiery furnace in Babylon. (Dan.3: 25-28) by making the fire have no power. God also delivered his servant Daniel from the Lions’ den “My God has sent his angel, and has shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me for as much as before him innocency was found in me”. (Dan. 6:22).

In the New Testament we read in Acts of the Apostles how the Jewish high priest and the sadducees laid their hands on the Apostles and put them in the common prison and how the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison door and brought them forth and said “Go stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life”: (Acts 5:19:20).

When King Herod laid hand on Apostle Peter, he put him in prison and delivered him to four quatrinions of soldiers to keep him… Peter was sleeping between two soldiers bound with two chains. “And the keepers before the door kept the prison. And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him. And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews…”(Acts 12:1-11).

The Guardian Angel

God’s providence and his love of mankind willed that he assign an angel for every believer to guard his soul and body and be with him from his conception in his mother’s womb until his soul departs his body, when his spirit returns to God, its creator. Some believe that the child, while still in his mother’s womb is guarded by his mother’s guarding angel. The minute the baby is born, a guarding angel is assigned to him.
The guarding angel accompanies the believer in this life and conveys his prayer to God .He intercedes with God, Almighty, for him.

The guarding angel guides the believer along paths of righteousness to fulfil God’s will and avoid thus paths of perdition. Heaven is the guardian angel’s abode. He is capable, however, of hurrying to earth in no time to accomplish his assignment .Had it been possible to attribute human emotions, such as joy and grief, to angels, we would have felt their sympathies with human beings throughout the fluctuating conditions of their life. The Lord said " Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth" (Luke 15:10). Angels try to keep the believers away from sin. They fight evil spirits for them, and protect them from the temptations of the devil and from disasters and calamities caused by him. Angels do that by praying for the believers. Lord Jesus says: " Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; For I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).

The doctrine of having a guardian angel assigned for each believer was among doctrines of the old Testament thus we read about Jacob, the father of the tribes blessing the two sons of Joseph saying: “The angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads” (Gen.48: 16). The author of Ecclesiastes reported " Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error:"(Eccl.5: 6).
The guardian angel remains with the believer until his soul departs his body. Angels carry the souls of the righteous, ascending with them to heaven according to the Lord’s words in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus " the beggar died, and was carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom:" (Luke 16:22).

The angels admit virtuous spirits to paradise to join the spirits of the righteous, where they wait for the Second Coming of the Lord to be joined to their bodies and to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Some theologians suggest that the souls of evil people are usually carried, after departing their bodies, by the devils into dark places where they wait for the agony of doomsday when they will be judged and will suffer eternal punishment. Some other theologians contend saying that only good angels are entitled to carry the souls of the righteous and the evil either to heaven or to darkness.

THE APPEARANCE OF ANGELS AND THE HERALDING OF GOD’S COMMANDS AND WARNINGS
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews reported:
" Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb.1: 13-14).
Throughout their ministry Angels appeared in diverse forms and conveyed Sundry messages to mankind. Three angels appeared to Abraham and they were substantial men to whom Abraham offered butter and milk and the calf, which he had dressed “and he stood by them under the tree and they did eat… and one of the angels said to him, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life: and Lo, Sarah, thy wife shall have a son” (Gen. 18:1-10) And this was fulfilled.

There came two angels to Lot…and he made them a feast and did bake unleavened bread. They ordered him to leave Sodom because God rained upon it brimstone and fire. (Gen. 19:1-3). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says: “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares”. (Heb.13: 2).

So interesting are the narratives that tell of the appearance of the angels to men; one of which is that in the vision of Jacob who dreamed and beheld a ladder set up on the earth and the top of it reached to heaven, and beheld the angels of God ascending and descending on it (Gen.28: 12), the others are the narrative of Jacob’s struggle with the angel of the Lord and Jacob’s triumph over him: and the narrative of the angel who prevented Bala’am, son of Beor from cursing those blessed by God and how the mouth of the ass of Balaam was opened.(Num. 22:23-24).

One of the significant appearances of the angels is that of Gabriel, the archangel, to Daniel, the prophet, when he told him of the future of his people annunciating the coming of Messiah, fixing the date of the coming of this great redeemer 500 years earlier (Dan. 8:16,9:21).
We know through the conversation that takes place between Gabriel, the Archangel and Daniel, the prophet, that an angel is appointed for every people and every city (Dan. 10:13,20).

Five hundred years after his appearance to Daniel, Gabriel himself appeared to Zecharia, the priest in the temple of incense and annunciated him of the birth of his son John, the Baptist. Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary as well in Nazareth and annunciated her of the divine conception of the Holy Spirit and of her giving birth to Lord Jesus, the savior, who would absolve his people of their sins.
It was Gabriel who appeared to Joseph, who was betrothed to the Virgin Mary and who ordered him to take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt because Herod was seeking to kill the boy.

The angels ministered to the Lord Jesus in the wilderness after his fasting, his baptism and his temptation. The angels appeared to Lord Jesus in the garden of Gesthemani before his Passions, strengthening him.

It was an angel who rolled back the stone from the grave of the Lord and sat upon it after the Resurrection of the Lord from the dead and he annunciated the women of the Resurrection of the redeemer. (Matt. 28:2).

The angels have been and will remain forever at the service of the Saints encouraging confessors and martyrs to adhere to and be steadfast in their confession.

Ranking of Angels

Angels exist in orderly arrangement, according to standing and function. They are divided into organized groups, ranks and statuses. Based on the teachings of the Holy Bible and ecclesiastic tradition, Holy fathers had nine names given to three ranks of them: high, middle and low.
The first rank includes the Cherubim (Gen. 3:23-24), the Seraphim (Is.6: 1-4) and Thrones (Col. 1:14-16). The second rank includes angels, authorities and powers (1 Pet. 3:22) and the third rank includes soldiers, archangels and angels (1Pet.3: 22). These three ranks refer to the three Christian ranks of priesthood, which are episcopacy, priesthood and Diaconate.

In his book entitled " Al-Rutba Al-Samawiya and Al-Rutba Al-Kawniya"(Heavenly and ecclesiastic ranking) Iwannis of Dara (+860) states the following:
“Articulate beings are two: Angels and humans. Angels are spiritual and so is their priesthood, which is purely spiritual and transcends this world.
As angels undergo no change in terms of age and they do not experience youth and old age, therefore, their priesthood shall have to be static, with no increase or decrease or change. Nor do they shift from one rank to another. Human beings, however, are tied up to their ever changing body, which grows up, matures, becomes old and then dies and as such they have been granted the type of priesthood that is appropriate to them.

Names of Some Angels

In the Holy Book only four Archangels of the highest rank are mentioned:

1) Gabriel whose name means God’s mightiness and power (D: 8:6, 9:10). He
is the angel who said of himself “I am Gabriel that stand in the presence of God” (Luke 1: 19). He is the Annunciator of the mystery of Incarnation and Redemption.
2) Michael (Dan. 10:13 and 21-12:1) whose name means who resembles God.
He is the Archangel who will call the dead in Christ to rise (1Thess. 4:16).
3) Raphael whose name means the light of God. (Tobias 12:19).
4) Ariel (Ezra 2- 4:10).

Wicked Angels-Falling Into Sin

Angels possess free will. They were led into temptation. Some of them committed the Sin of Rebellion and offence against God. Angels, who were steadfast in their commitment to God, Almighty, were called Holy Angels or the chosen angels because God, the omniscient, knew that they would be firm in obeying him. The other angels, however, who were disdainfully proud and rebellious, fell with their chief to Hades and were called evil angels. Their job is to fight against people ferociously, do mischief to them and tempt them. They are, Just like the good angels, organized hierarchically.
Isiah, the Prophet referred to the event of the fall of evil angels saying:
" How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, Son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I’ll be like the most High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit". (Is. 14:12-15).

In the Epistle of Jude we read about the Lord’s punishment of rebellious angels.
“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day”. (Jude 1:6). And Apostle Peter says:
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment:” (2Peter 2:4).

A great number of angels of all ranks and estates are fallen angels. Their prince is called Satan, which means a tempter, a complainer, a deceiver, and an accuser. He wanted to be equal to God according to Isiah, the Prophet (IS 14:12).
He is called Lucifer, that is the adversary, the rebellious, and insurgent. So many attributes were given to him. Some of which are Ekron’s God, Baal-zebub, who is originally the greatest God of Philistines (2Kings 1:2), the wicked, and Belial, the prince of this world, the prince that dominates the firmament.

He is a killer, a liar, the originator of Hypocrisy and the father of the serpent and the dragon.
Demons have much of what is true of angels, for they are incorporeal beings, and endowed with power, intelligence and ability, but such characteristics will turn into evil ones once the angel falls, and as such will be committed to do evil.
Evil angels hated man because he gained favor with God, who created him to be a rational being. He granted him dominance over all creatures, hence Satan’s temptation of man with the help of the serpent in the Garden of Eden and man’s fall into sin.
Ever since the fall of man into sin God put enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent’s soul, that is Satan. This enmity is a grace of God bestowed on man because through this enmity the evil intentions of Satan towards human kind were revealed and God declared Satan as an exposed enemy, eager to disguise in order to destroy mankind.
The war between man and Satan has never ceased. Apostle Paul says, therefore:
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph.6: 12).

Number

So huge is the number of devils. They attack man in great numbers as reported in the incident of the healing of the Gadarene demoniac of whom the evil spirit was taken out by the Lord. And when the Lord asked him what his name was he answered.
“My name is Legion: for we are many” (Mark 5:8). The term legion means an army unit consisting of as many as six thousand soldiers. This refers to this one man having been the victim of six thousand demon possessions. And forthwith, the Lord gave them leave and the unclean spirits went out and entered into the herd of swine and the herd ran violently down a steep place and were choked.

Power

Devils have great fearful material and immaterial power. The difference in their power is manifested in the influence they exercise on the minds of people and in the ways of mischief and elusiveness they adopt for leading man into falling into sin and for causing destruction in the world. They differ in ranks and positions. The Lord says:
" When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first" (Luke 11:24-26). The Lord also said about one kind of demons or about demons in general: " Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" (Matt. 17:21).

Devils possess power that enables them do great wonders, so that they make fire come down from heaven. (Rev. 13:13 , 16:14). Satan helps his followers- sorcerers and soothsayers and others- to do miracles and predict the future, or what we call witchcraft and divination. These activities include necromancy, which is in fact consulting Satan himself, because Satan has no authority over the soul of the dead. It is Satan who talks on behalf of the soul imitating that man depending on his previous familiarity with him. God condemns magic with all this demonic activities because it is a sin and a practice of Satan.

The power of Satan is doubled through his misleading schemes for he tries to hide and disguise beguiling men into thinking that he does not exist. Demons in fact are spiritual beings, each of whom has an existing “self”. When Jesus Christ healed those who were possessed with devils He used to command each as an individual being, and an essential self to come out of man and never return (Matt. 4:24, Marc 1:32).

The Lord triumphed over Satan when he tried to tempt him in the wilderness.
God gave us power to be triumphant in our Lord Jesus Christ and commended us to pray to the father saying " And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" (Matt. 6:13). The Lord annihilated the power of Satan exercised on us by his Holy Cross. The moment we draw the sign of the Cross on our foreheads demons run away scared and frightened. The Lord says:
“I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:18) and he said before His Passions: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31).
These devils are to undergo everlasting agonies on doomsday. The author of Revelation saw them defeated and wrote of them saying:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found anymore in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him”. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death". (Rev.12: 7-11).

Conclusion

We are surrounded by spiritual beings. They are chosen angels, who are Holy spirits and evil angels, who are evil spirits or devils and demons. The latter are our archenemies and the enemies of the entire human race.
The Apostle Paul warns us saying:
“Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast” (1 Peter 5-8).
Devils are incapable of subduing us and making us fall into sin no matter how powerful they are. They can only beguile us so that we commit sin of our own free will.

Thanks are due to God, who, out of his abundant mercy and providential care, has assigned a guarding angel, for each one of us. This angel accompanies us through out life, inspires us to be virtuous, guides us towards goodness, offers our prayers before the throne of God and intercede with God, Almighty, for us. We shall have to abide by the guidance of our guarding angel and honor him, but we shall not worship him because worship of angels is deemed a blasphemy according to Apostle Paul, who says " let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels" (Col. 2: 18).

In Revelation John fell at the feet of the angel to worship him and the angel said to him: " See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: Worship God". (Rev. 19: 10)

The Church keeps Commemoration days of some of the angels honoring them as saints. Let us, therefore, honor them, too, hoping that we would join them and be, just like them, the inheritors of Christ’s kingdom of heaven forever.

source: http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/essays/the-angels/

Monastic Life in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

1: Patriarchal Journal vol. 87-89 – September-November 1990
2: Patriarchal Journal vol. 156 – June 1996.

1. Introduction We call the monastic life a philosophy of Christian law and character. It is a way of abandoning worldly life. It is filled with yearning to attain life hereafter. In the monastic life, acts countenanced and proscribed in the world are to be avoided; the desires of the flesh are to be disciplined; all wanton impulses are to be checked, everything that cannot be brought into harmony with the true Christian faith is to be avoided.

2. The Eremitic Life Monastic life began with individuals seeking reclusion for the purpose of praying to God. It was individual self denial. Each ascetic sought a life separated from society. Where possible he took his abode far from human settlements where he could come closer to God through prayer and fasting in his quest for eternal life.

3. Cenobitism The eremitic setting developed into a spiritual community life as groups of ascetics came together under the leadership of a spiritually experienced leader or father in order to be initiated into the practice of the true ascetic life. At a later date monasteries were built to house the monastic community. They were headed by a father or abbot with a great deal of experience in monastic and ascetic living. This type of monastic life was called cenobitism.

Rules were set and internal orders for the monasteries were elaborated to regulate the spiritual life of the community among monks and their relationship with the abbot of the monastery. These rules also governed relations between his representatives and assistants, the wise and venerable scholars who initiated the novices into monastic living by instructing and watching over them.

Despite the existence of these monasteries, the anchoritic way of life persisted. Ascetics and hermits took their abode in caves and in hermitages. Many of them spent the weekdays in reclusion. On Sunday mornings they gathered in monasteries to celebrate the Mass with their brothers and the abbot, to participate with them in the agape meal, then return to their habitations.

4. Monastic life in the Pre-Christian Religions In the pre-christian religions, there were no lack of practices resembling Christian asceticism and monastic life, such as fasting, prayer, and exhausting the body through hard physical labor to discipline bodily desires and to check wanton impulses in an effort to attain enlightenment of the spirit.

However, these practices are far removed from the spirit of penance in which the Christian monk strives to live a perfect life in accordance with the Gospel. For if the monk subjects his body to such hardships, he does so not for the sake of torment but in order to master his body, to give the spirit room to develop, to practice a virtuous life and to acquire good character. It is therefore erroneous to see the origins of Christian monastic life in pre-christian religions such as that of ancient Egypt, in Buddhism or even Judaism.

5. Asceticism in the Old Testament However, it cannot be denied that the prophet Elijah mentioned in the Old Testament was a model for the anchorites who withdrew from the world with all its temptations.

We read how God commanded him: “Leave this place and turn eastward; and go into hiding in the ravine of Kerith east of the Jordan river. You shall drink form the river, and I have commanded the ravens to feed you there.’ He did as the Lord had told him; he went and stayed on the bank of the river of Kerith east of Jordan, and the ravens brought him bread and meat morning and evening, and he drank from the river” (1 Kings 17:2-6).

John the Baptist, too, lived the life of an ascetic. He grew up in the desert: “John was dressed in a rough coat of camel’s hair, with a leather belt round his waist, and he fed on locusts and wild honey” (Mark 1:6).

6. The Origins of Christian Monastic Life The fundamental tenets of Christian monastic life are based on the imitation of the life of Christ on Earth and on obedience to his sublime teachings. Our Lord Jesus withdrew into the solitude of the desert and fasted there for forty days and forty nights. We are told: “He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him” (Acts 10:38). And he chose to live in poverty. The apostle Paul writes: “For you know how generous our Lord Jesus Christ has been; he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that through his poverty you might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). And he had no abode.

On one occasion a scribe came to Jesus and said: “Master, I will follow you wherever you go.’ Jesus replied, ‘Foxes have their holes, the birds their roosts; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head’” (Matthew 8:19-20). And his disciples gathered alms to satisfy his and their own material needs. When he sent them out to preach the Gospel, he commanded them: “Go and proclaim the message: The Kingdom of Heaven is upon you. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse leapers, cast out devils. You received without cost; give without charge. Provide no gold, silver, or copper to fill your purse, no pack for the road, no second coat, no shoes, no stick, the worker earns his keep” (Matthew 10:7-10).

This divine command constitutes the basis for the vow of voluntary poverty which the monk takes. Celibacy, however, has its origin in the teaching of Christ: “…For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made to by men, there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can” (Matthew 19:12). The apostles thus recognized the true meaning of chastity and the advantages it has over marriage. On this subject the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord — how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world – how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world – how she may please her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).

In Christianity, monastic life arose as a necessary consequence of following the teachings of Christ. The goal was to attain Christian perfection through self-denial. In the imitation of Christ one sought to come closer to God and to keep to his path, devoting one’s entire being to this aim. The Holy Cross was borne, and strict obedience was to be given to the divine command which He gave to the man who came to Jesus and asked what good works he could do to attain eternal life. Jesus answered him, saying: “If you wish to go the whole way, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and then you will have riches in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mt 19:21). The monastic life was to be guided in all things by the words Jesus Christ spoke to His disciples: “If anyone wishes to be a follower of mine, he must leave self behind; he must take up his cross and come with me. Whoever cares for his own safety is lost; but if a man will let himself be lost for my sake, he will find his true self. What will a man gain by winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self? Or what can he give that will buy that self back? For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will give each man the due reward for what he has done” (Mt 16:24-27). Jesus also said: “I tell you this: there is no one who has given up home, brothers or sisters, mother, father or children, or land, for my sake and for the Gospel, who will not receive in this age a hundred times as much – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and land – and persecutions besides; and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29-30).

7. The Real Motives for Those Who Seek Monastic Life In the first chapter of his book The Book of the Dove, Bar Haebraeus ( 1286) stated the reasons for a human being to seek a life in seclusion from the world:

“A man withdraws from the world and its temptations for two reasons; the first and principal of these is Divine inspiration that arises in a person’s thinking, which arouses him from slumber to confront him day and night with the suffering that awaits sinners in the hereafter and with the eternal life that is promised to the just in the Kingdom of Heaven. This happens but seldom and is granted only to a few at different places and at different times.

The second reason, by contrast, is unreal and worthy reproach, arising from the desire of human beings for futile glory, a desire that comes upon a man, urging him to attain his goal through the arduous practice of asceticism. Some wealthy people, however, have sought to attain glory by spending large amounts of money. This has occurred everywhere and with great frequency. Although such conduct is to be rejected, it ought not to be dismissed outright, for there are many seeds that fall to the ground by chance and which bring forth good fruit, and others that are sown with great effort and which bear no fruit."

8. Monastic Vows True monastic life is obedience to a hidden call from God. The monk gives proof of his devout purpose in his quest for Christian perfection in the endeavor to bring his will into unison with the will of God. Through penance he attains the state of grace, of righteousness, of sanctification, and of communion with God by acting in accordance with the will of God and not according to his own will. He withdraws from the world. The pious monk seeks to achieve this observing three vows, which he makes publicly by his own free will. These vows are the following:

8.1 Absolute obedience to his spiritual superior.
8.2 Voluntary poverty, signifying that he may take nothing from the world as his personal property.
8.3 Celibacy, enjoining him never to marry and to remain chaste. These vows are faithful promises that the monk must keep to the end of his life. Moreover, the sum of his vows and promises constitutes a covenant between God and the monk which binds him for his entire life, and the breach of which places him in danger of eternal damnation. Besides these three vows there are Christian duties enjoined on the monk, like prayer, fasting and the giving of alms. He must give alms from the little money he saves from the sale of wares made to earn his living. The monk must keep long vigil at night, be reserved and indulge in no idle talk.

As we have mentioned above, a person might devote himself to the monastic life for a mundane and not divine reason, for the sake of transitory glory. The spiritual scholars advise that this ought not to be rejected out of hand, since a person may set out with such an aim nevertheless attain the love of God. They include those who withdraw into the desert to escape a martyr’s death and human tyranny. But, they continue their ascetic practices like fasting, prayer, and nocturnal vigils. Some of them thus attain the perfection of a true Christian and are a good example to others.

9. Factors Contributing to the Flowering and Spread of Monastic Life The decree issued by the Emperor Constantine the Great in Milan in 313 contributed to the flourishing of monastic life in the 4th century, which is also referred to as the century of monastic life. Through this decree Christianity, for the first time in history, was recognized as a religion enjoying the same legal rights as other religions.

Emperor Constantine’s next step was to free unmarried people and childless married couples from the heavy poll taxes that had been imposed on them. It was said that many people abandoned their families and fled into the desert to avoid paying this tax. In addition, monks could no longer be conscripted for military service. Such measures encouraged thousands of young men to seek monastic life, to submit to the duties and rules of the monastic life, and thus to lead a simple life in complete reclusion from the world.

In their cells many of them brought forth rich spiritual fruits thanks to those who instructed them in the spiritual life. They distanced themselves from material, everyday life, achieving greater independence from bodily needs and worldly-intellectual influences. Neoplatonic philosophy, which influenced some of the ascetic church fathers helped to bring monastic life to fruition.

10. Who is the True Monk? The monastic life is a state of constant penance. That monk acquires the qualities of loving kindness and of resisting evil is the best evidence of his devout resolve to take his place in the blessed life of a monastic order.

He might come to have doubts about the step he has taken and to consider returning to society. But if he resists this temptation and submits to the duties of monastic life by living in obedience to is spiritual mentors he will overcome this challenge. Even if his vocation is not from God, his constant prayer and the fulfillment of his duties will make it a divine one.

The tenacious struggle of the monk against the devil and his snares is a constant and relentless one. But, the love of the monk for God is mightier than life and death. For with Christ he has crucified the temptations of the flesh, he has taken upon himself the cross of Christ, which is the sign of departure from this world. He accepts abuse and revilement for Christ’s sake in order to live with Christ. In the words of Paul: “I have been crucified with Christ: the life I now live is not my life, but the life which Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:19-20).

Therefore, nothing can separate the monk from the love of Jesus: “For I am convinced that there is nothing in death or life, in the realm of spirits or superhuman powers, in the world as it is or the world as it shall be, in the forces of the universe, in heights or depths — nothing in all creation that can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39).

The monk also heeds the counsel of the wise Solomon, through whom God said: “My son, mark my words, and accept my guidance with a will.” (Proverbs 23:26) And, on this subject St. Musche Bar Kipho advises the monk: "My son, if you have devoted yourself entirely to the love and fear of God, hesitate no longer, fight with great courage and be a great warrior who enters the arena to destroy his enemies. "

11. The Spiritual Struggle of the Monk Saint Aphrem ( 373) describes the philosophy of the monastic way in a precious Syriac poem in which he portrays how he trained his soul through privation and the hardships of life and prepared it for the struggle against the temptations of the flesh:

11.1 Many times have I suffered hunger and my body has called for nourishment, I have abstained to become worthy of the blessedness that those who fast attain.
11.2 My body, made of dust, sought to still its thirst, but I spurned it in wrath that it might become worthy to savor the dew of the Kingdom of God. 11.3 And when in my youth and in my old age my body sought to tempt me, I chastened it day after day to the end.
11.4 On the morning of each day I thought that I would die in the evening. And like a man who cannot escape death I attended to the labors of the day without trepidation or tedium.
11.5 Each evening I imagined that the next morning I would no longer be alive. So I arose and prayed to God and worshiped him until the rising of the sun.
11.6 When my body pleaded for the sleep I sorely needed, I lured it with the blessedness that God bestows on those who keep vigil.
11.7 I have built a church in my soul, and I have offered up to the Lord the travail of my body as incense and fragrance.
11.8 My spirit became the altar, my will the priest, and like a lamb without blemish I sacrifice myself.
11.9 Lord, I have borne your yoke from youth to old age, and I have worshipped you constantly to the end of my days, I have spared no pain nor suffered tedium.
11.10 I have borne the sufferings of hunger and overcome them, for I have seen you taste bitterness between the two bandits for the sake of my redemption.
11.11 I have ignored the torments of thirst because I have seen my Lord drink vinegar from the sponge for my sins.
11.12 Food was of no significance for me, I disdained wine, for my eyes were upon the banquet of your kingdom, O heavenly bridegroom!
In this manner monks vanquished the passions of the flesh so as to be able to bear the hardships of life, the bitterness of asceticism and the severity of the rules. They kept vigil by night fasting and praying, they performed heavy manual labor in their quest for the pure life. The divine light was cast upon them from on high; some among them who attained perfection in their asceticism even achieved the stage of union with His glory.

Saint Anthony ( 356) — the Father of Monks — summed up his philosophy of asceticism in this phrase: “The soul is whole when the sensual pleasures of the flesh are abated.” And this is what the Apostle Paul meant when he wrote: “…for when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Saint Athanasius ( 373) wrote of Saint Anthony: “He kept watch long into the night, so that often he spent the whole night in prayer without sleeping. This happened not on only one occasion but frequently, so that the other monks wondered about it. He wore a robe of hair and in his entire ascetic life bathed not once in water. During the day he ate only once, but often only every second or fourth day. He ate only bread with salt and drank water. He was satisfied with a hard mat to sleep on, but usually slept on the bare ground.”

12. The Institution of Cenobiticism and its Organization Monastic life was known in Christianity from the 2nd century AD, as mentioned by Bar Hebraeus. In the 3rd century AD many ascetics, worshippers, and hermits appeared in many places subject to the See of Antioch. Saint Anthony (251-356) is regarded as the founder of monastic life. He was called the “father of monastic life” and “star of the desert.” And, Saint Paul of Thebes was considered the first anchorite. Before he died, Anthony was inspired by God to visit him and he told him the story of his life.

Saint Paul of Thebes also told him that the hour of his death was nigh, and that God had sent him to bury him. Saint Paul of Thebes lived to the age of 113 years, 90 of which he spent in the eastern desert of Egypt, which he had chosen to be his abode. His daily meal consisted of half a loaf of bread which was brought to him, like to the great prophet Elijah, by a raven.

With the flowering of monastic life and the spread of monasteries in Egypt, Saint Pachomius wrote the rules for cenobitic life, regulating all the spiritual, bodily, and social needs of the monks.

13. The Syrian Monasteries >From the beginning of the 4th century, many famous monasteries were founded throughout the lands under the jurisdiction of the See of Antioch, that is to say in Syria, Mesopotamia, on the southern coast of Palestine, in the Syrian desert, at Mount Edessa, at Mount Izla, which surveys Nisibis and Tur-Abdin, and in Qardu and Al-Faf close to Mosul. They became centers of learning and of the virtuous life; thousands of monks and nuns withdrew into them from the worldly life in their quest for the Kingdom of God. The fragrance of their virtue wafted gloriously from their monasteries, caves hermitages and cells.

Sozomen, the Egyptian chronicler (432 AD), reports of 30 ascetics inhabiting the steppes of northern and central Syria, whom he maintains had surpassed the Egyptians ascetics in practices. The figure given by Sozomen represents only the chosen few who attained fame through their ascetic life. There were thousands of other monks and nuns living in the monasteries of these regions.

14. Monastic Ordination is not Priestly Ordination On this subject Bar Hebraeus writes: “Monastic ordination does not bestow the rank of priest, since the monk ranks below a deacon.” He continues: “The monk is not permitted to approach the altar nor to touch the sacraments. The monk Dimathilius was strongly rebuked by Dionysios the Great because he had dared to do so.”

Although monastic life arose outside the church it is a force that supports the church. For monks and nuns live not for the redemption of their own souls alone, which is their mission, but the pastoral and spiritual well-being of the population is also their concern. They have prayed day and night for the church and the world, so that the light of faith has been shed upon all humanity.

They have borne the light of the Gospel to many regions of the Earth. As the bearers of knowledge they have led humanity from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge, thereby doing them a great service.

15. Monastic Life in the Service of the Church In hard times the anchorites abandoned their cells and monasteries and went into the cities to aid the faithful and to confirm them in their religion, to help them bear oppression with patience and in steadfast faith. When heresy arose, they departed to preach to the faithful and to preserve them from the mistaken beliefs of the heretics and to give them a firm hold in the orthodox faith that was entrusted to them by the holy apostles and the church.

Saint Anthony-the father of monks and the star of the desert — acted thus and determined not to abandon his connections with the church. His cooperation with the church was a good example for monks to emulate. During the wave of oppression that was instigated by Maximinus (305-318), he left his cell and went to Alexandria with the intention of suffering a martyr’s death for the sake of Christ. There he visited the persecuted faithful prisoners, comforting them and encouraging them to remain firm in their faith unto death. When the followers of Arius killed the church fathers and believers in a great wave of persecution, Saint Anthony visited Alexandria a second time in 355 to defend the true faith, to comfort the persecuted faithful, to visit the prisoners and to exhort them to remain firm in their faith. This brought him much suffering.

Saint Ephrem the Syrian for his part founded a church choir composed of young girls from Edessa, which sang works that he had both written and put to music, and which served to strengthen Christian doctrine and refute heresy. The beginnings of orderly liturgical life in the Syrian Church is regarded as being his work.

It should also be mentioned that when famine broke out in Edessa in the winter of 372/373, when many of the inhabitants died of hunger, Saint Ephrem visited wealthy citizens of the city, collected alms from them and distributed them among the poor. Furthermore, he established houses in which he set up 1300 beds. They served as hostels for the old and infirm under his personal care. When the plague broke out, Saint Ephrem undertook the care and comfort of the patients himself until he, too, fell victim to the plague, dying on the 9th of June 373.

16. The Worthy Status of Monastic Life in the Church Although monastic life arose outside the church, it became a significant force together with the church and within the church. It is more than prayer, fasting, the practice of asceticism and keeping vigil. It is more than knowledge and learning. It is an important element of the church that combines the spirit of asceticism with mysticism. In the eyes of society, the monk is thus the bearer of sublime tidings — the teachings of the Gospel — which he lives in truth, practices in perfection and offers as an example to humanity.

For this reason the faithful have had confidence in the monks. And monastic life has accordingly occupied a privileged and special position in the church. The church has recognized monastic life and has chosen its bishops and sometimes the patriarchs from among the monks.

It is thus still a tradition in the Syrian Orthodox Church to select bishops from among the ranks of monks. Patriarchs and bishops, after election as spiritual fathers and leaders, continue to live as monks as if still living in their monasteries. Saint Jacob, Bishop of Nisibis, the teacher of Saint Ephrem is said to have worn a goatskin robe, and to have prayed, fasted and kept vigil by night. Thus monastic life has performed an invaluable service for the church. Moreover, the development of the church is bound up with the flowering of monastic life. As Saint Athanasius wrote: “If monastic life and the priestly ministry grow weak, the entire church weakens.”

The monasteries have been beacons of religion, learning and knowledge and a lasting token of culture and civilization. Monks and nuns have offered a good example for all mankind. The daily life of the monks has been a clear demonstration of the true promise of Christ to all whose work is hard, whose load is heavy, for he will give them relief if they follow him and bend their necks to his yoke and learn from him to be gentle and humble-hearted, for his yoke is good to bear, his load is light (Matthew 11:30). His divine instructions, which are the instructions of perfection in the Christian life, have been put into practice by monks and nuns. They were happy on earth and have entered the Kingdom of Heaven, for they have worshipped God in spirit and in truth, and they have deepened knowledge of religion and of the world, doing humanity a great service.

The monasteries were established in the mountains and on the banks of rivers. They resembled institutions of higher learning, usually possessing a library. There were also a number of schools headed by monks. These schools, like those in Nisibis and Edessa, were attended by monks from monasteries and hermitages. In the 4th century the school of Nisibis was famous. It retained its importance up to the 7th century. It produced Saint Jacob ( 338), who was succeeded by his genial disciple St. Ephrem ( 373). People came to this school in search of knowledge from southern Mesopotamia, then under Persian rule, and when in 363 Nisibis fell to the Persians, St. Ephrem accompanied by a number of teachers, also left the school. They went to Edessa, where St. Ephrem took over the directorship of the school there. It had been founded as long ago as the 2nd century by the kings of the Abgar dynasty. When St. Ephrem took over the school, its importance grew still further. There were innumerable monasteries at Edessa housing many monks and offering many cells for their abode. St. Ephrem occupied a cell there, practicing the ascetic life, interpreting Holy Scripture, composing poetry and hymns and teaching in the school, as well as instructing young girls in church music. In 373 he was called to the Lord.

In his book The Scattered Pearls: History of Syriac Learning and Literature, the great scholar Patriarch Ephrem I Barsaum ( 1957) writes: “83 monasteries have been counted that were important centers of higher learning since the advent of Christianity. Only ruins remain of some of them. But, despite the campaigns of destruction and persecution their inhabitants have suffered, other monasteries have remained steadfast.”

The monasteries have given the church and the world outstanding scholars who have produced great works. Their pens have given birth to famous works in the fields of theology, philosophy, languages and other disciplines and branches of knowledge. Although many of their valuable works have been lost, many renowned libraries are proud of what they possess in the way of Syriac manuscripts.

We will mention some examples of these famous monasteries, making reference to a number of sources, the most important of which is The Scattered Pearls: History of Syriac Learning and Literature by the scholar and Patriarch Ephrem I Barsaum:

1. The Qenneschrin Monastery was dedicated to the Apostle Thomas. It was situated on the eastern bank of the Euphrates in Syria, opposite the city of Hierapolis (Garablus). Founded in about 530, it was able to devote itself to scholarly pursuits more than all the other places of learning. Its fame spread across all borders and until the early 9th century it had the largest school of theology and science. At the time it had more than 300 monks. It produced 7 patriarchs — one of whom was Patriarch Athanasius Al-Jammal ( 631) — and 15 bishops. It was inhabited until the early 13th century. One of the famous scholars to study there was Severus Sebocht ( 667), a great philosopher, who has bequeathed outstanding works of philosophy and astronomy to us. Through his mediation Indian numerals were transmitted to the Arabs.

2. The Qarqaphto Monastery was founded by St. Schemu’n. It was situated between Ras-Alain and Hassake in Syria close to the village of Al-Magdal on the banks of the river Khabur. It was famous in the early 8th century for its activities in the field of linguists. The monks of this monastery gained fame in the field of the vocalization of Holy Scripture. It produced 6 bishops and was occupied until the early 10th century.

3. The St. Barsoum Monastery was first mentioned in the 8th century. It was built on the mountain close to Melitene in Turkey. It was the residence of the patriarch from the 11th to the end of the 13th century. It produced 5 patriarchs and 34 bishops. It was inhabited until the 17th century. Among the famous sons of this monastery were Dionysius Jacob Bar-Salibi ( 1171), Metropolitan of Amida (Diyarbakir), Mar Michael the Great ( 1199), and Mar Gregarious Abu Al-Faraj ( 1286), known as Bar Hebraeus. It possessed a well-stocked library containing numerous manuscripts in the Syriac script Estrangelo.

4. The St. Zakai Monastery was near Ar-Raqqah in Syria. St. Johanon of Talo ( 538) was ordained monk here in 508. It also produced the Patriarch Johanon IV and 20 bishops. It once gave shelter to the caliph Harun ar-Rashid, who liked it very much there and consequently honored its inhabitants.

5. The Baared Monastery was in the district of Melitene. It was founded in the 10th century by the Patriarch Johanon VII. It produced one patriarch, one maphrian and 18 bishops and metropolitans. It served as a place of learning until 1243. In that year Turkomen killed 15 of its monks, most of whom were scholars.

17. Monasteries Still Inhabited and Active Today
1. The St. Hananyo Monastery (Dayr az-Zafaran) is situated to the east of the city of Mardin in Turkey, and was built in the early 6th century of the foundations of a citadel. It became well-known from the end of the 8th century. From 1293 it was the residence of the patriarch for more than 600 years. It produced 21 patriarchs, nine maphrians and 110 bishops. It is still inhabited, and houses a religious primary school under the supervision of a number of monks.

2. The St. Gabriel or Qartomin Monastery lies east of Midyat and is the most famous monastery in Tur-Abdin. The two ascetics Mar Samuel and Mar Schemu’n built it in 397. It became the principal residence of the bishops from 615 to 1049. Mar Gabriel ( 667) resided as bishop there in the 7th century and the monastery was later named after him. It produced four patriarchs as well as one maphrian and 8 bishops. Among them was the Patriarch Theodosius (887 – 895) who had a distinguished reputation in the field of medicine and wrote a book bearing his name. The monks of this monastery were well-known for manufacturing parchment. They also distinguished themselves in the copying of manuscripts and the renaissance of the Estrangelo script under the leadership of Metropolitan Johanon in 988. To this day, the monastery houses monks and nuns and runs an important school.

3. The Monastery of Mark the Evangelist is also referred to as the Monastery of the Mother of God in Jerusalem. According to a Syriac inscription found on the wall of the church in 1940, the institution was founded in the 5th or 6th century. It is the upper room in which the Lord partook of the Last Supper with his disciples. It is now the See of our Metropolitan and since 1472 has been the residence of our monks in Jerusalem. It has produced nine metropolitans.

4. St. Matthew’s Monastery is east of Mosul at the foot of Mount Al Faf. It is a large monastery, founded in the late 4th century and the residence of a metropolitan since that time. In its first period it housed a large population of monks. It has suffered many troubles. In 1845 it was renovated and restored. It has produced three patriarchs, six maphrians and 24 bishops. It is still inhabited and, as we have mentioned, is the seat of a metropolitan.

5. The Syrian Monastery in Egypt is located in the Egyptian countryside between Cairo and Alexandria. It was probably built in the 5th century. A Syrian tradesman named Morutho of Tagrith bought it in the mid-6th century and donated it to the Syrian monks. In 1084 there were 70 monks living in the monastery. It was occupied until the mid-17th century and is now inhabited by Coptic monks.

18. Monastic life in our Syrian Church Today The Syrian Church has experienced various forms of oppression, especially since the beginning of the present millennium. The internal schisms caused by changing currents within tribes and clans have also weakened it. Furthermore, first the Roman Catholic Church and later the Protestant Church have sought to reduce the stronghold of the Oriental Churches, of which our Syrian Church is one. They isolated sections of the faithful, bringing them under their influence by exploiting the political influence of foreign countries and the ignorance of local rulers. This has led in particular to a weakening of the influence exercised by our clergy. Our Church has nowhere sought the protection of a foreign power, for it believes that God alone is its protector. These compelling factors have weakened monastic life and, as the Fathers wrote, when monastic life is weakened, the church will also be weak.

Today the church is aware that renewal and awakening is imperative, and for this reason it has encouraged its children to dedicate themselves to the church and to become monks and join the communities of our monasteries. The church has devoted particular care to the St. Ephrem Seminary, which was founded in Zahle, Lebanon in the 1930’s by the Patriarch Ephrem I Barsaum. It was later moved to Mosul in Iraq, then returned to Lebanon. It subsequently closed down for a period until we reopened it in Damascus. It has produced and will continue to produce monks who are aware of their responsibilities and who are willing to make sacrifices in the effort to revive the church. We endeavor to send some of the graduates to theological colleges abroad to complete their university education.

At present we have ten monks studying at the University of Athens, six in Rome, and others at various higher educational institutions in Europe and the United States. We have also established the monastic life of Jacob Baradaeus for nuns and have sent two of them to Thessaloniki, Greece for higher studies.

Through the grace of God, we have had a new building constructed for the St. Ephrem Seminary in Ma’rat Saidnaya, 25 kilometers away from Damascus. We have given this building the name St. Ephrem Clerical Monastery. It will also be a center for Syriac studies, a center for Syrian youth from around the world and an ecumenical center. We encourage our spiritual sons, the Syrian clergy to seek cooperation with all Christian churches to attain, God willing, unity among Christians.

We thus endeavor through the grace of God to foster spiritual leadership in the church by strengthening monastic life. We are preparing for the coming of the third millennium in the ambition of following the example of our forefathers, who despite persecution and many hardships have borne the light of the Holy Gospel throughout the world.

It should also be mentioned that we have two schools in the Mar Gabriel Monastery and in the Dayr as-Zafran Monastery as well as a theological school in Mosul, Iraq and a theological faculty in India. And because Syrians like the monastic way, they have, through the efforts of their honored Metropolitan Julius Cicek, founded a St. Ephrem Monastery in the Netherlands. They have acquired a monastery here in Germany and another in Switzerland. It is our hope that Syrian monastic life will flourish everywhere in the world where Syrians live.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your kind attention and I would especially like to thank the Theological Seminary of the University of Heidelberg for inviting me to give this lecture. God bless you.

source: http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/articles/monastic-life-in-the-syrian-orthodox-church-of-antioch/