Human, Metahuman and Godhuman

 

By Theodore Riginiotis, theologian

Source: Άνθρωπος, "Μετάνθρωπος" & Θεάνθρωπος (& here)

 Translation Κ.Ν.

The human desire to surpass one's natural capabilities has been an element of the human psyche, as well as the culture of all peoples, since ancient times. It has driven people to more significant achievements, which have helped individuals, families, communities, entire peoples - even humanity as a whole - to survive under adverse conditions, to win seemingly invincible battles, to sacrifice themselves for the other, to travel, to explore, to also make groundbreaking discoveries and inventions that have improved their lives.

This desire had fueled the myths of superhuman heroes, but it also shaped the actual, historical heroes of all times, from the brave warriors or martyrs, who became symbols of the indomitable spirit by sacrificing their lives, through to the ordinary people, who had held on to their ideals and supported their families under conditions of indescribable poverty, danger, uprooting or oppression. History did not record these by name, but they nevertheless constitute History.

But we can also see the opposite aspect: the arrogance, the insatiable desire for wealth or power that lead to blind violence and bloodshed, the Nietzschean “thirst for power”, the Freudian “death drive” – an aspect that all the wise teachers of all peoples have rejected as an aspect of transcendence of human potentials. In the Greek spiritual tradition, there is mention of “hubris” and “sin”. Whatever their name, these trends lead to destruction and to self-destruction.

In the ancient Greek traditions we encounter stories about "hubrists", who committed heinous crimes by upsetting the natural order of things (such as the murder of parents or children, incest, the murder of guests offerred hospitality, or the attempt to deceive the gods) - such as the cases of Tantalus, Sisyphus, and even Oedipus or Orestes (of these, Oedipus’ act was unintentional and Orestes’ was simply revenge, whereas Tantalus and Sisyphus were actually evil personalities).

However, even in the Orthodox Christian tradition we can read about the first-fashioned humans, who had attempted to "become like gods" by eating of the forbidden "fruit of knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 3:5); also about the people immediately before the Deluge, whose "evils had multiplied upon the earth" and where "everyone persistently thought about evil things in their hearts all the time” (Gen. 6:5). Also mentioned are the people of Babel, who had decided to build a tower that would reach the heavens – an accomplishment that they believed would secure their eternal fame (Gen. 11:4). Then there were the Sodomites, who not only committed unrestrained immorality among themselves, but the entire male population of the city had sought to en masse attack the divine visitors to their city, declaring their lust to rape them (Gen. 19:3-5).  We also read of the fall of King David, who had betrayed the trust of Uriah the Hittite by orchestrating his death in battle in order to possess his wife for himself (2 Kings 11 and 12), etc.

People in modern times - even today, in the so-called “postmodern era,” - often no longer acknowledge the concepts of hubris and sin; they do not admit their devastating consequences, but instead consider it their right to do “whatever they want.” Moreover, they do not acknowledge that the special abilities of each person (intellectual or practical) are God-given gifts, but instead  consider them to be their own exclusive property. They have forgotten that the terms “talents” and “charismas,” originating from the New Testament (Matth.25:14-30, Rom.12:1 and 1Cor.12), all reveal that what we possess are indeed God’s gifts. When they do happen to remember this detail, it is vaguely attributed to some personified and deified “universe,” as the notion of ​​referring to the God of our fathers is abhorrent to them.

So, because we tend to sink ourselves to the very depths of our passions - that is, in spiritual and physical addictions, without thinking of resisting the pleasure they arouse in us (whether it is carnal pleasure, or the pleasure of acquiring power, authority, wealth, or knowledge, but not wisdom), we are ultimately led to despair, violence, and annihilation.

Hence modern man’s nightmares: invasions by alien races, autonomy and domination by machines, the teratogeneses (the creation of monsters), the viruses that turn most of the human population into zombies, are all being expressed in a shocking manner, through literature, cinema and the modern media, ever since the 19th century, with works such as Mary Shelley's “Frankenstein”, Robert Louis Stevenson's “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” or the novels by H.G. Wells, up to the modern myths captured in dystopian science fiction movies, all of them shaping entire cultures and subcultures.

And yet, people are not backing down. In fact we are now being informed about "meta-humans" and "metahumanism". Modern man imagines himself genetically modified or enhanced with technological implants and assumes that in this way he will surpass his physical-biological capabilities and evolve into something superior. He will no longer be human, but “superhuman” (also “ubermensch”); but for this to happen, he must previously become a “meta-human”.

*****

In this corner of the world called Greece, but also in other places and peoples that have embraced the liberating message of Christianity throughout history (without transforming it into a paranoid thirst for power, as it unfortunately happened in the Western European Middle Ages), the wise and holy teachers, but also the wise and simple people who raised us, are very familiar with the insatiable thirst of people of every era who tried to transcend their limits and capabilities.

They know this very well, because that is precisely what they themselves have been doing throughout the ages – except that they transcended without turning into something other than humans. That is why in their daily lives and communication they had elevated the term “human” to a sublime value – by embodying expressions such as “be human”, “have humanity”, knowing that otherwise you become “inhuman”, “bestial” - you become a “beast”, an animal, something non-human, and your actions become “bestiality”, animal barbarities.

So, my brother, my sister, my child, there is no need to evolve into something “meta-human” in order to transcend from what you feel is holding you back; you only need to ensure that you remain human, and you will discover that is more than enough.

Perhaps it is necessary to explain how those holy and wise teachers of our Orthodox Christian culture perceive the human creature, so that what we are saying can be fully understood.

Saint Justin Popovich († 1979) writes: “Mankind!... All creations fall silent before this most extraordinary miracle of all worlds. As if God had gathered all the miracles from all His worlds and summarized them in one, in man.”

Also:  “It is gospel truth - the all-true gospel – not mine, but of God’s saints – that man is a great mystery, a holy mystery of God. So great and so holy that God Himself condescended to become an incarnate human in order to present us with the full depth of the human mystery. The truth of the gospel, the all-truth, is that God became man, in order to make man a god by Grace.” (Saint Justin Popovich, Man and God-Man).

While traveling through Christian antiquity, it is worth stopping at an anthropological crescendo by Saint Gregory the Theologian:

The Creator Logos creates man as a creation out of two elements – that is, of visible nature and invisible. And although taking his body out of matter that already existed, He inserted breath out of Himself (which the Holy Bible knows this as “noetic soul” and “image of God”). So He placed him on earth as another world (different to the rest of the universe), small, and within the small, large; another angel, a combined worshiper, a supervisor of visual Creation and a mystic of the noetic (that is, with knowledge of the noetic, of holiness, of angels etc.), king of the earth, but with his own King above him – terrestrial and heavenly; temporary and immortal, visible and noetic, between grandeur and humility, himself of spirit and flesh... a creature that is perfected here and transferred elsewhere, and – the finality of the mystery – he is deified by turning towards God.”

(Logos 45, ON HOLY EASTER, PG 36, 632 – An English rendition).

*****

Do you want to know what kind of human the saints of our tradition had exalted with so many hymns of praise? If you search, will discover that apart from the evil, the violence, the despair or indignity that you very probably see around you, there is also greatness, beauty, love, heroism, and holiness. The tendency to go beyond the potentials that we usually think we possess is in fact a built-in characteristic of our species, namely, the human race.

To attain the ability to go beyond your potentials, you do not need to become an imaginary Superman or Black Widow, Thor or Captain America; you can strive to become like Basil the Great, Philothea the Athenian, Cosmas the Aetolian, or local historical heroes and patriots such as Manto Mavroyenous, Makryannis, Galatia Soureli, Callirroe Parren, Carathéodory or Papanikolaou… All of these personages had changed the world in the era and society in which they lived and acted, by precisely enforcing the advantage of being human.

Would you like to meet some contemporary “superhumans”? You can search the Internet with the term “Orthodox Mission to the Third World”. But we don’t have to go that far; you may just look back at your own parents and their parents’ parents – even throughout your family line - and you will surely come across some of them who had given (or are still giving) their best - quite possibly under terribly adverse circumstances - not only for themselves, but also for their family and very possibly for a wider circle of acquaintances, or for their city, or for society as a whole.

If you are still searching for the perfect, I would suggest studying the lives of the saints – both the ancient and the present-day ones. There you will discover how a human can become, not a “metahuman”, but a “godhuman”, by being connected – through struggles and sacrifices of course – with the Godman Jesus Christ Himself.

Study closely the love, self-denial, humility, devotion, but also the ascetic life and prayer and self-control of the saints, not just their miracles. Only then will you be able to discern that the entire discussion about “metashumans” and “metahumanism” has sprung from within a world that thirsts precisely for the supreme Good, that is, for Christ and holiness. It is a world that thirsts, but does not know where to seek the “living water” to quench its thirst; a world that hesitates to turn to the slandered Christ and His slandered Church. It hesitates to seek the precious diamond among common stones, so it instead seeks and accumulates ordinary stones, extolling them as diamonds. Unfortunately, regardless of how many stones are collected, they will never constitute the treasure that the heart truly desires.  Whereas on the other hand, a humble and poor ascetic (even an everyday, homeless person) who lives prayerfully in the name of the Lord Jesus, are most probably the truly rich - both here and in eternity.

 

The True Dignity of Human Beings – Saint Gregory of Nyssa on Slavery

 



by Fr. Stephen Freeman  

Αncient faith / Glory 2 God for all things

Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries

One of the most rewarding aspects of reading historical material is how it reveals the human mind even at a great remove from our own. There is a myth in our culture that history is the story of progress. It presumes that only in our modern times have we begun to free ourselves from the false ideas of the past. What you discover when you actually read historical materials is that many of the worst ideas ever espoused were specifically “modern” ideas (eugenics, racial superiority, abortion, euthanasia, etc.).

Occasionally, you come across a piece of ancient writing that simply shatters these false assumptions. A case-in-point is this excerpt from St. Gregory of Nyssa’s fourth homily on Ecclesiastes. He is writing in the 4th century, A.D., when the Church is squarely in the Byzantine period. The homily is a commentary on Ecclesiastes 2:7 in which the writer describes his growing wealth and his acquisition of slaves. Nyssa uses the occasion for the most scathing critique of slavery in the annals of Christian preaching. It shows a wonderful clarity of theological insight and understanding – something that would and should have been available and understood both by his contemporaries and by Christians of all times. He did not invent this understanding – he simply demonstrates that its ideas are timeless and not the product of some later historical progress.

There is truth. It abides. There is sin. It obscures.

From the 4th Homily on Ecclesiastes – St. Gregory of Nyssa

Ecclesiastes 2:7
I got me slaves and slave-girls,
and homebred slaves were born for me,
and much property in cattle and sheep became mine.

The writer of Ecclesiastes sets out in careful order virtually everything in his own experience through which the futility of our activities in this life is known. But at this point he touches on what appears to be a more serious piece of evidence from his deeds through which he can be accused of the affliction of arrogant pride. What is there in what he has laid before us so far which leads to such a level of conceit? He has told us about a valuable house, an abundance of vines, elegant gardens and water features, nicely constructed swimming pools, extensive beautiful parkland. Yet, none of this can compare to his presumption that, as a human being he believes he can lord it over people who in essence are just like him. Because then he goes on to say: “I got me slaves and slave-girls, and homebred slaves were born for me”.

Do you detect the excessive arrogance? An utterance like this shows that he is exalting himself against God. We know from the words of the prophets that absolutely everything is subject to the supreme authority in the universe (Psalm 119/118.91). But this man counts as his own what truly belongs to God and gives to the likes of himself the kind of power which makes him think that he can be the master of men and women. When he sees himself as so different from those who are subject to him one can only conclude that pride has led him to go beyond what is appropriate for his nature.

“I got me slaves and slave-girls.” You are condemning to slavery human beings whose nature is free and characterized by free will. You are making laws that rival the law of God, overturning the law appropriate for humankind. Human beings were created specifically to have dominion over the earth; it was determined by their creator that they should exercise authority. Yet you place them under the yoke of slavery, as though you are opposing and fighting against the divine decree.

Have you forgotten the limits of your authority? Your rule is limited to control of irrational creatures. In scripture we read: “let them rule over birds and fish and four-footed creatures”. (Gen 1.26) How then do you go beyond what is subject to you and exalt yourself against a nature which is free, counting people like you among four-footed or footless creatures. “You subjected everything to humankind” declares the scripture through prophecy and it goes on to list what is under human control: domestic animals, cattle and sheep. (Psalm 8/7.8) Surely human beings have not been born to you from domestic animals? Surely cattle have not given birth to human offspring? Irrational creatures alone are subject to humankind. “He makes grass grow for animals and green plants for people’s slaves”. (Psalm 104/103.14) . But you have torn apart the nature of slavery and lordship and made the same thing at one and the same time enslaved to itself and lord of itself.

“I got me slaves and slave-girls.” Tell me what sort of price you paid. What did you find in creation with a value corresponding to the nature of your purchase? What price did you put on rationality? For how many obols did you value the image of God? For how many coins did you sell this nature formed by God? God said: “Let us make human beings in our own image and likeness” (Gen 1.26). When we are talking about one who is in the image of God, who has dominion over the whole earth and who has been granted by God authority over everything on the earth, tell me, who is the seller and who the buyer? Only God has this kind of power, or, one might almost say, not even God. For scripture says that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11.29). God would not make a slave of humankind. It was God who, through his own will, called us back to freedom when we were slaves of sin. If God does not enslave a free person, then who would consider their own authority higher than God’s?

How can people be sold who have dominion over the earth and everything on the earth? It is essential that the assets of people being sold are sold with them. How can we value the contents of the whole earth (Genesis 1.26)? If these are beyond any valuation then tell me, what is the value of the one who is over them? If you said “the world in its entirety”, even then you would not have found anything approximating to the value (Matthew 16.26; Mark 8.36). Someone knowing the true value of human nature said that not even the whole world is worth enough to be given in exchange for the human soul. So when a human being is for sale, it is nothing other than the lord of the earth being brought to the auction room. This means that creation as we know it is at the same time being put up for public sale. That is earth, sea and islands and all that is in them. How then is the purchaser going to settle the payment? What will the vendor accept considering the greatness of the property involved in the transaction?

Did the little notebook, the written agreement and the calculation in obols trick you into thinking that you could be master of the image of God? What utter folly! If the contract was lost, if the writing was eaten by moths, if a drop of water fell on it and washed it away, where is there any proof that you have a slave? Where is there anything that supports you in being a master? You have somebody who is named as your subordinate, but beyond the mere name I see nothing. 

What did such power add to your real nature? It did not give you extra years or any genuine superiority. Your lineage is still human, your life is similar, the sufferings of the soul and the body prevail upon you both in the same way, with you as master and another in subjugation you are still both affected by agony and delight, gladness and distress, sorrow and joy, anger and fear, disease and death. Surely there is no distinction in such things between slave and master? Do they not draw in the same air when they breathe? Do they not see the sun in a similar way? Do they not both sustain their life by taking in nourishment? Is not the make-up of their bodily organs the same? Do they not both return to the same dust after death? Do they not both face one and the same judgment? Is not the prospect of heaven and hell the same for them both?

So when you are equivalent in every way, tell me in what particular way you have more so that you think you can become master of another human being even though you are a human being yourself. “I got me”, you say, “slaves and slave-girls,” as though they were a herd of goats or swine. After saying “I got me slaves and slave-girls,” he added the good cheer that comes through flocks and herds. For he says “And much property in cattle and sheep became mine”, as though animals and slaves were subject to his authority to an equal degree.

This text is copied from the website Early Church Texts – edited by Revd Andrew Maguire.

 

The Pagan Roots of Nazism: A Deep Contrast with the Values of Romiosyni

By Christodoulos Molyvas

thiapoliteia.blogspot.com

Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries

 

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ: Οι Σκοτεινές Ρίζες του Ναζισμού και η Ελληνορθόδοξη Παράδοση

Introduction

National Socialism was not merely a political movement; it was a system with deep mythological, esoteric, and neo-pagan foundations. Behind Hitler’s speeches and the military parades lay a world of runic symbols, ancient Germanic mythology, and occult societies that profoundly shaped the ideology of the Third Reich in its darkest depths.

1. The Völkisch Movement and the "Racial Soul"

In the late 19th century, the Völkisch movement developed in Germany—a blend of nationalism, romanticism, and pagan revival. Its representatives rejected Christianity as a "Jewish" religion and sought the "authentic" spiritual roots of the German people in Germanic-Norse mythology: Wotan (Odin), Thor, and Valhalla.

Guido von List (1848–1919) was among the first to associate runic letters with racial mystical significance, developing the Armanenrunen system.



Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels founded the order Ordo Novi Templi, publishing magazines that combined archaic paganism with virulent racial theories.



2. The Thule Society: The Occult Bridge to Politics



The Thule Society (Thule-Gesellschaft, 1918) was perhaps the most decisive link between occultism and politics. Its name referred to the mythical "Ultima Thule"—the alleged primordial homeland of the "Aryan race."

Members believed in an ancient, spiritually superior Hyperborean civilization from which the "Germanic race" descended. Their emblem was the swastika—an ancient Indo-European symbol to which they assigned a racialist meaning. From the circles of Thule emerged the German Workers' Party, which Hitler later renamed the NSDAP.

3. The SS and Heinrich Himmler: A New Teutonic Order

Heinrich Himmler was the preeminent "pagan" of the Nazi regime. He envisioned the Schutzstaffel (SS) not as a mere military force, but as a priestly brotherhood inspired by medieval knights.

Wewelsburg Castle was transformed into a "sacred site" for the SS, complete with rituals and occult symbolism.

Runic Symbols were used extensively; SS members adopted the double Sig (⚡⚡) as their dreaded emblem.



The Ahnenerbe was a pseudo-scientific organization founded to search for evidence of "Aryan superiority" from Tibet to Scandinavia.

4. The Appropriation of Symbols

The swastika (Hakenkreuz) and the runes were not Nazi inventions, but ancient symbols appropriated for a racialist narrative.



Sig (ᛋ) was the symbol of victory used as the SS emblem.

Odal (ᛟ) was the symbol of heritage and land used by agrarian organizations.

Leben (ᛚ) and Tod (ᛏ) were the life and death symbols used on SS gravestones to replace the Christian cross.

5. Hitler, Rosenberg, and the Anti-Christian Agenda

While Hitler used Christian language publicly for political expediency, he privately expressed deep contempt for the faith. In his "Table Talk"(Tischgespräche), he famously stated: "I cannot stand Paul... he is the one who destroyed the ancient world."

Leading ideologues like Alfred Rosenberg sought to replace Christianity with a "Germanic religion" based on the "Myth of the Blood" and the ideology of Blut und Boden (Blood and Soil).

6. The Radical Contrast with the Values of Romiosyni

The neo-pagan and racialist worldview of Nazism stands in absolute historical and spiritual opposition to the principles of Romiosyni(the Hellenic-Orthodox tradition). This conflict is not merely political, but deeply ontological.

Universalism vs. Ethno-racialism

Nazism deified biological descent and racial segregation. Conversely, Romiosyni is defined by Universalism, rooted in the Pauline "There is neither Jew nor Greek," asserting that a person's value is spiritual, not biological.

The Person vs. The Masses

In Nazism, the individual is a disposable cog in the "Race" (Volk). In the Orthodox tradition, the human is approached as a "Person"(Imago Dei), possessing absolute, inalienable, and eternal value regardless of origin or capacity.

Love and Sacrifice vs. The Law of the Strongest

Nazi neo-paganism adopted Social Darwinism, glorifying the extermination of the weak. Romiosyni proposes the exact opposite: love, solidarity, and sacrificial self-offering (the "kenosis" of the strong for the sake of the weak).

Spiritual Freedom vs. "Blood and Soil"

The Blut und Boden ideology confines man to animalistic instincts. Romiosyni calls for the transcendence of natural necessities through the ascetic life, aiming for spiritual freedom and the transfiguration of the world.

Conclusion

The pagan dimension of Nazism was a structural element used to build a totalitarian "anti-religion." Its conflict with the universal and person-centered nature of Romiosyni remains a critical chapter in the history of ideas, reminding us how easily evil can cloak itself in the language of the "sacred."

Sources & Bibliography

Historical & Occult Research

-Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology. NYU Press, 1993.

-Pringle, Heather. The Master Plan: Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust. Hyperion, 2006.

-Trevor-Roper, Hugh (ed.). Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944. Enigma Books, 2000.

-Rosenberg, Alfred. Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts (The Myth of the Twentieth Century), 1930.

-Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. Penguin Books, 1998. 

Theological & Philosophical Context (Romiosyni)

-Romanides, John S. Romiosyni. Pournaras Publications, 1975.

-Yannaras, Christos. The Freedom of Morality. Ikaros, 1970.

-Chapoutot, Johann. The Law of Blood: Thinking and Acting as a Nazi. Belknap Press, 2018.

 

What do we mean by “Fathers of the Church”?

 

Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries 

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ: Τι είναι οι Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας

“Fathers” and “Patricity” in Christian theology

“Fathers and Teachers of the Church” (or, in brief, simply “Fathers of the Church”) is the title used to denote Christian priests of all ranks¹ (but also some who were not priests), who have been acknowledged as spiritual teachers and have also been acknowledged as authors for their formulation, their definition of the boundaries of, and the defending of, the Christian dogma.²

According to Western scholasticism (i.e., the philosophical theology that developed in western Europe following the Schism of 1054 and up until its apex during the Medieval era), the Patristic era ended in the 6^th century A.D. for the Western Church (with the last Western Father being Saint Isidore of Seville) and in the 8^th century for the Eastern Church (with the last Eastern Father being Saint John of Damascus). More recent historical and literary research, which has developed in the West and has adopted the criteria of scholasticism, has likewise adopted the idea of separating “Patristic literature” (=the works of the Fathers up until the 8^th century) from “Byzantine literature” (=the works of Byzantine authors after the 8^th century).

The Orthodox Church however regards Her theology as being always Patristic and only to the extent that it continues to be Patristic, can it also be considered valid and true. Thus, the Church discerns carriers of Her Patristic spirit in every Christian era, from the 2^nd century (=the first century after the generation of Apostles, with Saints like Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch the “God-bearer”, e.a..), through to the late Byzantine era (for example, Saints Gregory Palamas 14^th century, Mark of Ephesus 15^th century), but also after the Byzantine era (Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain 18^th – 19^th century, the Russian Saints of the 19^th century: Ignatius Branchianinov and Theophanes the Recluse, Innocent Beniaminov, e.a.), while even in our times there also appear to be several authentic carriers of the Patristic spirit of ecclesiastic theology – some of whom have been recognized officially as Saints (for example Saint Nectarios of Pentapolis, Luke the Physician of Symferoupolis, John of Shanghai (Maximovitch), Nicholas of Ohrid (Velimirovitch), e.a.), while others, albeit not “officially” recognized through an ecclesiastic “decision” of any kind, are nevertheless recognized in practice; for example holy teachers such as Justin Popovic, Sophrony Sacharov, Filotheos Zervakos, e.a..

The Church’s persistence with Patricity in Her theology is attributed to the fact that She regards the Fathers as saints; that is to say, as individuals with an authentic (in the Christian sense) association with uncreated (=divine) reality, and as such, reliable expressers of Her dogmatic teachings, whose validity also includes the element of being “divinely inspired”. The Christian dogma is expressed by means of the “enlightenment of the Holy Spirit” (in other words, through God Himself), and not by means of intellectual cogitations. And this is the determinant difference between philosophy and theology.

Of course, for the Church this difference does not lie in “appealing to a Holy-Spiritual enlightenment” – that is, to a “religious authority” – but to the actual existence of this transcendental element; otherwise, if in both cases we were to have ontological and soteriological systems, fashioned by human intellectual processes that merely invoked a certain contact with the divine Beyond for reasons of prestige, then in essence, there would be no objective difference between philosophy and theology³.

Fathers and philosophy

It should be noted that the Patristic opus does not end with the definition of boundaries of the Christian dogma; it also extends into a multitude of issues that involve the examination of human nature - and especially the soul - as well as Man’s relationship with himself, his fellow-man, the world and God – in other words, it deals with the healing of the consequences of Man’s Fall, for each individual, for mankind, and for Creation overall. The Patristic opus also continues its ceaseless dialogue with Philosophy and Science as they appear in every era. In this context, it makes sense to examine Patristic essays from the philosophical aspect also, inasmuch as they comprise one of the most fruitful chapters of worldwide thought. Unfortunately, the science of Philosophy’s History is ignorant of their contribution, although in recent times, with the endeavours of Greek researchers such as K.D.Georgoulis, Vasilios Tatakis, Bishop John Zizioulas of Pergamon, Christos Yannaras, fr. Nicholas Loudovikos e.a., their contribution is now being brought to light.

«An orthodox mind will stand at the point where all roads meet. He will carefully examine each road and, from his uniquely advantageous position, he will observe the conditions, the dangers, the uses and finally, the destination of each road. He will examine each road from the Patristic point of view, given that his personal convictions will come into a real, not hypothetical, contact with the culture around him» (Ivan Kiriyevski, Orthodox Russian author; quoted from the book by fr. Seraphim Rose "Orthodoxy and the religion of the future).

The Fathers of the ancient Church possess in their arsenal the entirety of Hellenic philosophy; after all, they too are philosophers. The only difference is that they are not concerned with “interpreting the world” or describing the laws of nature and their functions (alas, for our contemporary, materialistic sciences), but instead, they focus on theosis (deification), which they consider an imperative prerequisite for a complete knowledge of the world – in other words, our association with the world. (Of course, to modern science this seems meaningless, because it is a conquering, not a loving science. How can you love that which you seek to conquer? Our entire civilization – the western kind, which has now been imposed worldwide – is a conquering kind. Even the major navigators-“explorers” were followed by invading conquistadors, while the exploration of space is commonly referred to as “the conquest of outer space”).

It should be noted that Basil the Great’s “Hexaemeron” for example, as well as Saint Gregory of Nyssa’s “On the making of Man”, which is the continuation of the “Hexaemeron”, also summarize the scientific knowledge of their time. Saint Gregory specifically uses references to physiology, medicine, psychology, and also makes mention of dreams etc. And yet they all interpret in the most rational manner, rejecting astrology and any other irrational forms of religiosity.

Let us keep in mind that prior to its illicit Medieval distortion Christianity represented logic and progress, whereas idolatry represented irrationalism. Immediately upon its founding, the Church had openly opposed the superstition of the roman world, regarding it to be something irrational: astrology, star-worship, angel-worship, sorcery, divination, submission to fate…

Are the Fathers infallible?

We need to mention here that the Fathers of the Church, albeit saints, are not considered infallible. However, it is in them that the words of the Lord are realized: “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (John 6:45), therefore their opinion is far more valid than any “scientist” theologian’s (mine, for example) who is not pure in heart. A valid interpreter of this kind (a saint) can quite easily be a humble and illiterate person (man or woman or even child), if their heart is pure enough. The “grand mystery of piety” (1 Tim.3:16) becomes palpable through catharsis of the heart, and not through logic. The heart is not the place of sentiments; it is where the Holy Spirit comes to reside (if the heart is pure), or the evil spirit (God forbid!) if the heart is filled with passions (Gal 4:6, Luke 22:3).

Even though I may not possess a perfect knowledge of Patristic literature and what is more, I am by no means a saint (so that I can speak validly about the saints), I do venture to say the following: There have been certain Fathers who, within the sum of their important writings, have also supported certain teachings that according to Orthodox theology were wrong. The most characteristic example is saint Augustine, however there are other examples also, such as the Syrian Fathers Aphrates and Isaac, who had maintained that Hell is only temporary (this is because they had perceived it as a punishment by God and they were confident that the God of Love would not punish eternally), and others. Thus, it is advisable to read the holy Fathers within the context of the overall teaching of the Church and to not absolutize the viewpoints of one or two of them. We accept something as valid, when it is supported by the sum of the saints of the Church, even if one or two Fathers happen to have another viewpoint. [For an analysis of this problem, see the book by fr. Seraphim Rose (whom I dare to call an American contemporary Father of the Church), “The soul after death – Posthumous experiences in the light of Orthodox teaching”, Myriobiblos Publications]
 

Some of the Fathers

We could briefly list here a number of Fathers of the Church who come to mind:

Apostolic Fathers (1^st century) : Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-bearer, Polycarp of Smyrna.

Apologetes (2^nd century) : Saint Justin the philosopher and martyr, Athenagoras the Athenian philosopher, Kodratus Bishop of Athens, Theophilos of Antioch e.a..

Pursuant Fathers: 2^nd century: Irenaeus of Lyon, 3^rd century: Dionysios or Rome, Dionysios of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage e.a., 4^th century: Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, Martin of Tours, 4^th-5^th centuries: John the Chrysostom, the blessed Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria; 6^th century: Dionysus the Areopagite, Leontius the Byzantine; 7^th century: Maximus the Confessor, Isaac of Syria, 8^th century: John of Damascus, Boniface of Germany; 9^th century: Theodore the Studite, Photios the Great… 15^th century: Gregory Palamas, 16^th century: Mark of Ephesus, e.a…..

Particular groups of Fathers

A particular group of Fathers of the Church is one that pertains to those who did not leave any written works behind them, but had contributed towards the formulation of Orthodox theology, through their participation in local Synods, and especially in Ecumenical ones; such were the major saints of the 1^st Ecumenical Synod, Spyridon and Nicholas. The Fathers of Ecumenical Synods are generally honoured “en masse” as saints, given that it was NOT on the basis of political interests and imperial directions that they formulated the terms and the teachings of the Synods, but through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

Then there are the Neptic Fathers (that is, the teachers of “nepsis” – the Orthodox “science of ascetic living” – although all the Fathers are also neptic): Makarius the Egyptian (4^th century, Cassian the Roman, Benedict of Noursia, Diadochus of Fotiki, John of Sinai (author of the ‘Ladder’, 6^th century), Simeon the New Theologian (10^th – 11^th centuries), Gregory of Sinai, Niketas Stethatos (11^th century, Nicholas Kavasilas, Nicephoros the Recluse, etc… (refer to the monumental works “Philokalia of the sacred Neptics”, which the holy Fathers Makarius Notaras and Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain had composed during the Turkish occupation and the Russian Father Paisius Velitkovsky had translated into Russian).

Another particular group of Fathers of the Church are the Hymnography Fathers: for example, saints Romanos the Melodist (the Salutations to the Theotokos e.a. and especially numerous other kontakia), Ephraim the Syrian (in Syrian), Andrew of Crete (the “Major Canon”), John of Damascus (the canon for the night of Easter e.a.), Kosmas the Melodist (the Canon for Christmas e.a.), Joseph the Hymnographer (innumerable canons), Theophanes and Theodore the Branded (they are called thus, because their foreheads were branded with a red-hot iron during the Iconomachy period), Theodore the Studite, Cassiane the Hymnographer (the “troparion of Cassiane” – glorification hymn chanted on Tuesday of Easter Week, also a section of the canon of Good Friday, e.a.) and many others. A contemporary hymnographer-Father was the blessed elder Gerasimos of the Holy Mountain, from the Minor Scete of Saint Anne).

There are also the Fathers of the Desert, who are hermits and monks. Some of them we have already mentioned. Let us note a few more. It should be noted that most of them were simple monks, without any ecclesiastic “rank” – not even priests. Furthermore, many of them did not leave any written texts; however, their verbal teachings as well as their way of life (which was quite possibly even more important than their words) have been recorded by other Fathers in collective works such as the “Lausaikon” by saint Palladius of Helenoupolis, the “Leimonarion” by saint John Moschou, the “Patristic Maxims”, etc…

Older Fathers: Anthony the Great ( the «professor of the desert»), Pachum the Great, Sisoe the Great, Poemen the Great, Arsenius the Great, Pafnut the Great, Nilus, Daniel of the Scete, Pitirum, Zosimas, John the Persian, Ammonius, John Kolovos, Theodore of Ferme, Abraham the Iberian, Moses the Ethiopian «of the robbers» (=a former robber), Sarmatas, Pambo, Biare, Onupher the Egyptian, Pior, Apfy, Mark the Athenian, Theodosios, Head of the Coenobium, and many others.

Recent Fathers:

Russian: Serge of Radonez, Seraphim of Sarov («find peace, and thousands of people will find peace alongside you»), Agapetos the Healer, Alexander of Svir, Cyril of the White Lake, Nicodemus of Lake Koza, John “of many feats”, Job of Potsaev, Nilus of Sorsky, the Elders of Optina (Anatolios, Joseph, Ambrose, Moses, Varsanuf, Nectarios, e.a.), Seraphim of Viritsa and many others (for these, see works such as the “Paterikon of the Caves of Kiev”, “The Thebais of the North” e.a.)

Holy Mountain: Siluan and fr.Tichon (Russians), Paisios, Anthimos of Saint Anna, Porphyry the “Hut-burner”, Joseph the Hesychast or Spilaiotes (the cave-dweller), Ephraim of Katounakia e.a.

Drama (Nth.Greece): George Karslides

Crete: Evmenios and Parthenios Koudouma (from Heraclion), Joachimaki Koudouma (from Roupes, Mylopotamos), Gennadios of Rethymnon, Evmenios of Roustika and many others

Romania: Cleopas Elie, Arsenios Bokas, Paisios Olaru, John of Hozeva, Enoch the Simple (Holy Mountain) etc…

Mothers of the Church

Icon from here

Aside from the Fathers, there are also the holy Mothers of the Church, who belong mainly to the last mentioned group, i.e. of the teachers who did not write anything themselves but whose way of life and words were recorded and handed down to us by others. Among the hundreds of major women-teachers of Orthodoxy were the following:

• The holy, great martyr Saint Ekaterina who, despite having been imprisoned for her faith, brought 150 idolatrous philosophers to Christianity, as well as 500 soldiers along with their commander (all of them were executed and are saints of our Church).

• Saint Makrina, grandmother of Saint Basil the Great and Saint Gregory of Nyssa,

• Her grand-daughter, also Makrina the Saint, the “theologian, teacher and philosopher” (according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa), who had convinced her mother saint Emmelia, to give equal rights to her maids and servants and to eventually give them their freedom.

• Saint Maria the Egyptian. A rich young woman who lived her life as a prostitute, for the pleasure and not for the money. On a pilgrimage trip to Jerusalem, she seduced the men who were travelling on the same ship. But when she arrived there, an invisible force obstructed her from going near the Precious Cross to worship. Crushed with the realization of her sins, she immediately departed for the depths of the desert taking only some bread with her and she remained there, until she was revealed in a divine vision to saint Zosimas, who found her in the desert, brought Holy Communion to her on his next visit to the desert, and a year later, he returned to find her lifeless body in the desert (still intact) and with the help of a lion, dug a grave and buried her there.

• Saint Melane, who, together with her husband, distributed her fortune in order to free captives, and ended up being the spiritual mother to the monastic sisterhood that the first Saint Melane – her grandmother - had founded in Jerusalem

• Saint Irene “Chrysovalantou”, who was seen to hover above the ground whenever she was in prayer and cypress trees would also lower their branches whenever she passed by them.

• Saint Matrona of Chiopolis, who lived on the island of Chios in the 15^th century and performed innumerable miracles, both while alive as well as after her repose

• The equally important ascetic saints, Syncletiki, Anastasia the former patrician (she lived inside a cave that only Saint Daniel of the Scete knew, in the 6^th century), Theoktiste of Lesvos island, Sarrah and Theodora, Genevieve of Paris, Ursula of Germany, Gulinduch the Persian (Maria when baptized)

• The great saints of philanthropy, Filothei the Athenian (1589) and Elizabeth the Grand Duchess of Russia (1918), who spent all their fortune to build hospitals and philanthropic institutions and finally gave their very life-blood (the former was put to death by Turks and the latter by Communists)

• The saints of Russia Dorothea and Anna of Kasin, Paraskeve of Pinega, Athanasia Logacheva, the “fools for Christ” saints Pelagia Ivanovna, Xeni of Petroupolis, and many others

• Contemporary saints, the holy Mothers Methodia of Kimolos island (1908), Pelagia of Kimolos island, Sophia the “Holy Mother’s ascetic” (1974, Kastoria), Tarso, the “fool for Christ” (Keratea, Attica 1989), Gabriela Papayanni (1993) and many more…

Notes

1 The ‘ranks’ of Christian priesthood are three: Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop. Albeit most of the Fathers of the Church bore the rank of Bishop, there have been Fathers with only the rank of Deacon (e.g. Ephraim the Syrian –he wrote in Syrian- and of Presbyter (e.g. John of Damascus) or even ordinary monks.

2 The definition is by professor G.Zografides, “Byzantine Philosophy” and “Hellenic Philosophy”. For more detail see “Patrologia A” by Stylianos Papadopoulos - Introduction – 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, Athens 1977, Introduction.

3 As above mentioned work by Styl. Papadopoulos, Introduction.

Translation by A.N.