NR. 2 – 2023

It is interesting that, right from the beginning, these monastic directions had not a clear or fixed pattern. For example, Saint Anthony retired into the wilderness, but organized his disciples into communities of monks, keeping in touch with them, and even with the pilgrims. This combination of the two ways of monastic life is proven by the existence of the two places where the great hermit used to retire: the mountain inside and the mountain outside, the latter having the role of protecting the saint from the long presence of the brothers. The same is the case with Saint Pachomius, who first experienced an anchorite phase, initially leading a life of isolation, alongside the hermit Palamon, and only later, providentially, turning to a community life. However, changing the way of life was not a personal option, but a divine command, which was motivated by the spiritual benefit of others.

It should be noted that while anchoritism made the ideal of perfection a goal of the monk, possible to achieve through long asceticism and continuous prayer, coenobitism focused on unconditional obedience to the abbot, making the cutting off of one’s will the ultimate virtue. From this point of view, the anchorite, an improved monk, assumed a freer way of life, without external constraints, but imposed by himself.

Coenobitism had to find a balance between the individual acceptance of the evangelical message and the observance of some rules that would ensure the well-being of the community and, above all, the good cohabitation of the monks. We must take into account the fact that the first anchorites were people with a special life, who retired into the desert after a long period of domestic asceticism. For them, isolation – even if it was accompanied by many temptations – was not a stumbling block. The coenobites, however, were chosen from the young, uninitiated and without spiritual experience. For them, it was necessary to place themselves under the obedience of an elder and to observe certain rules of coexistence. Later, when monasticism acquired an organized, institutionalized form, a symbiosis was achieved between community life and that of isolation. Monks were first trained in the community way of life, with the assumption of monastic vows and the observance of the rules of the community (with an emphasis on the relationship with others); and, later, those who surpassed these stages chose the path of the desert to devote themselves totally to perfection, through unceasing prayer (with an emphasis on the relationship with God).

The community dimension of anchoritism also resides in the monk’s struggle with evil spirits. The devil is considered the common enemy of the whole humanity. From this point of view, the withdrawal of the monk from the world, in order to wage this battle against the devil, is no longer just an individual gesture, but has universal dimensions. Armed with the weapons of unceasing prayer, the monk is like a sentinel at the walls of the fortress, defending those within from the attacks of the devil, thus contributing to the salvation of all. On the other hand, nor did coenobitism exclude the possibility of a secluded life for the more experienced monks.

The strict rules imposed on the coenobites had, first of all, the role of training the young novices in the new way of life, which presupposed a certain rigor necessary for a shared life. This is why coenobitism insisted on obedience as the main virtue of a monk. Dependence on a more experienced elder, with whom the initiate one was in permanent contact and to whom he must obey unconditionally, as one who knew how to guide him into the new life, was the key to the success of the life in common. But as some monks learned the principles of living, becoming guides for the novices, they became more and more free to dedicate themselves to a deeper asceticism, through a life withdrawn from the rest of the community. However, the connection of the monk with the community, through participation in liturgical life, remained essential, both for him and for others. The presence of the experienced monk in the midst of the community was of great use, and he sacrificed moments of deep communion with God in favour of moments of communion with the brothers, to share with them his spiritual experience. It is interesting that in both types of monastic life, love remained the ultimate virtue, which guided the monk’s life: love towards fellow humans in the coenobitic system and love towards God in the anchorite model, without one excluding the other.

Because in the Old Testament the heart symbolizes the tablets of flesh on which God writes the commandments of life, so it functions as an anatomical substitute for the tablets of the Law. For Eastern Christian tradition, as for other traditions, the organ of the heart fulfils a crucial role for the psychophysical and spiritual life of man. If Philokalic authors such as Evagrius Ponticus, John Cassian, Nilus consider that the mind is the central entity of the human being, for Marcus the Ascetic the heart acquires essential valences in the process of purifying human nature and unifying its psychosomatic and spiritual functions. The heart also “thinks”, “judges”, has its own deep reasons, memorizes, and perceives unseen realities. But such attributes do not remain simple metaphors in religious literature, because, in modern times, there are authors who highlight neural connections between the heart, intestines and cortical regions. The cord has cells that completely imitate the role of those in the brain. Even the body’s magnetic field is absolutely influenced by the heart’s field, which is huge in addition to the brain’s field. At the same time, the heart is also a battlefield until it gets rid of external stimuli that can corrupt it towards lusts and passions. This is why in the text of the Holy Scriptures it is specified that man removes evil from the heart, that the heart is the realm of life and death; but this happens also in literature. For example, Dostoevsky said that the heart is the battlefield between light and darkness. Prayer is the spiritual way through which the mind succeeds in detaching itself from the contents of psycho-moral evil. But the heart enters into a process of change and conversion, as a result of the spiritual practice of prayer; and the peak of this desire is defined by the descent of the mind into the heart, which is a deep feeling of the divine reality, a synchronization of the psychophysical elements with the spiritual ones in the human being. However, the purity of the heart takes place as an effect of the constant mention of the name of Jesus. The Jesus prayer is a true cure for the heart and mind, cleansing them of all defilement. This divine prayer burns the passions, the bodily movements and the contents of shameful thoughts, uprooting every kind of affection towards the body and towards the senses. In addition to these aspects, the fact that the heart designates the center of the human being, where we have a rich inner life, is the primary argument to argue that man needs, in agreement with the scriptural texts, a retreat into the chambers of the heart, isolating himself from the noises and the artifices of redundant and superfluous communication that only endanger the unitary functionality of the psycho-spiritual functions, in case it does not close the “doors” of the senses, which want to penetrate the core of his interiority. For us, the heart represents the communion space in which the inner man, the deep man meets God, through the grace that dwells there since the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. It is a privileged place; it is deep, immeasurable, reaching dimensions commensurate with the divine Infinity it mirrors. Moreover, as a containing space that can receive the burning fire of divinity, we understand that the heart stands at the intersection of the created and the uncreated, between the profane and the holy. Therefore, it can be compared to the burning bush that does not consume itself because of divine goodness and love. The perpetual fusion of the matter of the heart with the holy name generates a conversion, a continuous transfiguration of the heart, which is purified, humbled, filled with merciful love and, above all, hosts the process of deification. Resemblance to God begins with the change of perception in relation to the whole creation, realized through a merciful look at the whole world and through a reconciliation of contrasts and opposites. The heart designates that organ which is indispensable in relation to the divine. Therefore, it is considered, by many religious traditions, not only by Christianity, the organ that scrutinizes the intelligible world, hence it is also called the “third eye” or the “spiritual eye” (Andrei Pleșu), which remains tirelessly awake, that vigilant ability of man through which he can be compared to the angels, who never sleep. Through it, man receives super-sensible knowledge and adheres to unseen realities. Because it is called the temple of the soul, man becomes the priest of the world in the altar of his heart, the priest of the cosmic heart. The Heavenly King prayer refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in us, but the concrete place of “indwelling” refers to the notion of a tent (“skenoson”). The man who reaches the heights of pure prayer, of the prayer of the heart, receives along with the purification of the heart, and the descent of the mind into the heart, an extraordinary gift of the work of divine grace. This new state is a profound experience of the divine at the level of the entire human personality, a deep feeling of the divine reality. Due to the integration of the mind into the heart, the real possibility of synchronizing psychophysical elements with spiritual ones in the human emerges. This principle of unification represents an absolute reality for the ascetic-mystical tradition of Orthodoxy. This mind-heart relationship, due to divine grace, can be understood as a kind of “imprinting” of the heart’s activity by the power of the mind, which generates spiritual warmth, peace, and joy. The return of the mind into the heart is called by Dionysius the Areopagite a circular movement, and St. Diadochus of Photice calls it the “chambers of the mind,” the “depth of the heart.” Father Dumitru Stăniloae specifies that there are several obstacles in the way of the descent of the mind into the heart, some due to sensations and perceptions, others to imagination, and others are produced by the very nature of the mind because it continuously emanates ideas or thoughts that jeopardize the process of unification with the heart. Therefore, the multiple meanings of the notion of “heart” restore its primordial role in spiritual anthropology, that of being the center of the unification of the psychophysical man with the inner man.

First, Bulgakov perceives the Virgin Mary as the central hypostasis of the created Sophia, in the sense that Mary is the highest hypostatic form that the created Sophia has reached in its aspiration to reunite with the divine Sophia. To some extent, every human being is a “created Sophia”, that is, a hypostasis of the created Sophia, but the Virgin Mary, by virtue of her exceptional purity and holiness, becomes the “personal expression of Sophia in creation” par excellence. On several occasions, the Russian theologian attempts to associate Sophia with St. Gregory Palamas’ theology of uncreated energies, which seems to portray the Virgin as an elected vessel and source of the uncreated energies, an idea equally shared by Father Stăniloae. However, the differences between them are significant. In Bulgakov’s approach, the concept of Sophia establishes a considerable distance between Christ and His Mother, in the sense of her autonomization in relation to Christ: the sophianity of Mary is not solely founded on Christ, but on the intrinsic quality of her personal hypostasis, prepared in a special manner by the Holy Spirit, whose image she is. The Virgin becomes sophianic outside Christ and separate from Christ, although her sophianity seems then to be perfected through Christ. In fact, in Bulgakov’s perception, each human hypostasis has a divine origin, which grants him the capacity to hypostasize the created Sophia and to become increa­singly sophianic, a fact achieved all the more by the hypostasis of Mary under the special overshadowing of the Spirit. In contrast, Father Stăniloae, when emphasizing Mary’s quality as the receptacle of all the graces of the Spirit, which are the uncreated divine energies, always bases this reality on the deified human nature, thus fully pneumatized, of the Risen Christ: The Virgin Mary is the receptacle and the source of the Spirit’s graces only insofar as her human nature remains in a maximum and ineffable union or proximity with the human nature of her Son, in whom dwells the fullness of Godhead.

Second, this exceptional sophianity of the Virgin is further clarified by Bulgakov’s thesis on Mary as a pneumatophoric hypostasis, which reconfirms and deepens his parallelism between Christ and Mary, by removing her from the intimate connection with Christ and placing her in a special relationship with the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Just as in the inner Trinity (ad intra) the Father reveals Himself in the divine Sophia through the dyad of the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit, so too does the Father operate ad extra, in the Sophia of creation, where He reveals Himself through the dyad constituted by Christ and Mary: since the Son incarnates in Christ, i.e., in the male form of human nature, it was fitting for the Hypostasis of the Spirit to descend and make a special dwelling in the hypostasis of Mary, i.e., in the female form of human nature, thus restoring the divine image in humanity in its entirety. Only in this way, Bulgakov asserts, does the rapprochement and reunion between heavenly/divine Sophia and earthly/created Sophia occur. This allows Bulgakov to speak not only of a “Christosophy”, as the revelation of the sophianic Logos in Christ, but also of a “Theotokosophy”, as the revelation of the sophianic Spirit in the Mother of God. This means that the manifestation of Sophia in the world simultaneously encompasses two aspects: “Christological and Theotokological”. Moreover, Christ, being solely a divine Hypostasis, appears as the representative of the uncreated Sophia, while the Virgin Mary, being solely a human hypostasis, appears as the representative of the created Sophia. Essentially, Sophia is one, but has two aspects: divine and created, corresponding to the two manifestations: “Christosophianic” and “Theotokosophianic”.

That being said, the thesis of the pneumatophoric hypostasis, as formulated by Bulgakov, undermines the Christological foundation of Mariology. It is true that the Russian theologian often insists on the unity between Mary and Christ, but this is no longer primarily due to their ontological connection, i.e., their human consubstantiality, as emphasized by Father Stăniloae, but rather due to the eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit: Mary “is in a necessary, essential, and inseparable relationship with [Jesus] through her motherhood, that is, in a relationship grounded in the reciprocal relationship between the Second and Third Hypostasis”. The notion of motherhood here has a pneumatological meaning: as Absolute Femininity, the Spirit has and bears the Son within Himself from eternity, and by descending upon Mary, the Spirit grants her His divine motherhood, that is, the same capacity to bear the divine Son. In other words, by being filled with the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary appropriates divine motherhood, meaning the relationship or the unity that the Spirit eternally has with the Son. Consequently, in Bulkagov’s reflection on Mariology, all these assertions seem to amount to a substitution of the pneumatological foundation for the Christological one.

A third aspect that distinguishes the approach of the Russian theologian from that of the Romanian theologian stems from the previous two and resides in the pneumatocentric justification he offers for the exceptional holiness of the Virgin Mary. Truly being “more honourable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim” due to her perfect holiness, superior to the holiness of any other creature, the Mother of God owes this position not so much to her direct contact with the Holy Hypostasis of the Son at the moment of His conception (and thereafter), but rather to her special relationship with the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, the source of holiness, whose dwelling place she becomes at the moment of the Annunciation. This is why, in Bulgakov’s view, the Virgin Mary cannot be fully freed from the original sin until Pentecost, when the Comforter is sent into the world. Instead, the Christocentrism of Father Stăniloae’s Theotokology provides the necessary doctrinal support for identifying the source of Mary’s special holiness in her indelible relationship with the Saviour Jesus Christ, a relationship that, of course, does not lack the participation of the Holy Spirit.

In patristic literature, these terms are developed in a mystical sense, describing states of the soul and actions occurring in the organs of the soul. Irénée Hausherr presents the relationship between katanyxis and penthos as one cause – effect, i.e., the compunction of the heart is the moment of acknowledgement of the sinful state, and penthos is the manifestation of this experience through tears that bring deliverance from sin. The author goes on to review the references contained in the works of the Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical authors prior to St. John Climacus. What draws our attention are the testimonies of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, which open up the perspective of unceasing weeping through the example of Abba Arsenius, who wore a towel around his neck because of his many tears. However, St. John Climacus has the merit of systematizing the ascetic ethos of his time, offering a practical guide to the monk eager for perfection, an aspect that contributed greatly to the spread of his work in the monastic environment and beyond, being the most multiplied and translated book of Christianity, after the Holy Scripture.

Thus, the order of the presentation of the chapters and the positioning of the Seventh Step, which deals with Joyful Tears, after the one in which St. John Climacus speaks about the remembrance of death, is not at all by accident, but highlights the original meaning and the evolution of the terms, to which St. John gives spiritual dimensions. It then deals with some aspects that could facilitate or prevent the shedding of tears, and gives arguments which open up the perspective of the gift of tears to those who live in the world. The conditions that are imposed are the cutting off of the will and the non-judgement of fellow human beings. With regard to the effects of tears, St. John Climacus identifies “restraint and silence of the lips” for those who want to acquire tears; then, “lack of warry and the state of being not mindful of evil” are offered to those already advanced in spiritual life; and to the accomplished ones, “humble thought, thirst for the lack of honours, hunger for affliction, being non-judgemental towards those who sin.” These effects have in common the facilitation of the acquisition of humility, which crowns the whole spiritual endeavour. On the other hand, the amplitude of the state of grace, which the compunction of the heart and tears manifest, leads St. John Climacus to consider the baptism of tears greater than the Sacrament of Baptism. The paradox is explained by Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae, who demonstrates that St. John does not diminish the value of Baptism but wants to highlight the accessibility that we can have to the purity that comes from the shedding of tears. If through Holy Baptism we are forgiven for the sins caused by the fall of our forefathers, through the baptism of tears we ourselves have the possibility of reaching our own purity. Following the narrative thread of St. John, we notice that the compunction of the heart is not a simple remorse, but it is a dialog with God. If we were to draw an analogy, the depressed or those who grieve for the world isolate themselves from friends and family. They do not want anyone to know their fallen state. They suffer even when they are pitied or encouraged to come out of this state of deep sadness. Whereas sorrow for God leads a person into a dialog with God, a confession of sorrow sustains the shedding of tears and turns them into a wellspring of joy. Weeping thus intercedes before God. The sincere tears of the sinner touch God’s goodness and love of man. He, who looks upon us as His sons, cannot be indifferent to the tears and the perseverance of those whom He loves so dearly. However, the wellspring of tears must not stop with the forgiveness for sins. The joy poured out on the weeper does not erase the feeling of repentance. It remains and nourishes the wellspring of tears, bringing to the one in question a sense of true peace, of spiritual tranquillity. Thus, the cessation of tears should occur at the moment of passing to the eternal life, with the meeting of the Bridegroom Christ in the eternal Kingdom of God. Next, the author deals with St. Symeon the New Theologian’s perception of weeping, which he considers to be among the states that the monk must work unceasingly to acquire salvation. Thus, in addition to humble contemplation, prayer and unceasing joy, weeping is a sine qua non condition in order to attain salvation. Particular to St. Symeon is the fact that the penthos instils and enlightens all aspects of the Christian life and that it is the spiritual authority behind the Holy Sacraments that accompanies the process of spiritual growth (Ps 41, 3). In addition to the belief that tears shed for one’s sins are a gift of the Holy Spirit (charisma), St. Symeon believes that this also testifies to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the one who weeps. St. Simeon does not hesitate to present his own ecstatic experiences, but under the pseudonym of the young George, so as not to deprive himself of the gifts he has acquired. For him, the gift of tears is an effort of will and not an effect of human nature. Therefore, the reasoning that a harsher or colder nature cannot weep is not true, but is proof that the will has not been worked and determined to acquire the joyful tears. In conclusion, the compunction of the heart and the gift of tears are important factors in the process of repentance, which are not limited by place or circumstance, but only by one’s own will. They both contribute to the acquisition of the soul’s joy of forgiveness.

The rule of the avaton forbids the entry of women into monasteries of monks and of men into monasteries of nuns, except for the confessor of the monastery and the bishop. This monastic rule is rooted in the very essence of monastic life through the cultivation of virginity in its most comprehensive sense. At first it was practiced in almost all monastic communities, both in those of monks and in those of nuns. Over time, the avaton remained valid especially in the more isolated monasteries, where the monastic communities wished to devote themselves with all their being to spiritual needs, renouncing all worldly things, cultivating silence and solitude in order to increase prayer.

Monasteries with the rule of the avaton are present in many Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, which shows the importance of this more austere form of monastic life. The most important place that has maintained this form of spiritual organization is the Holy Mount Athos, which has been protected by the political rulers throughout history in order to preserve this form of monastic life. An important aspect in this study is the brief presentation of the Romanian contributions for the support of the ascetic life on Mount Athos, as well as the Romanian monks who lived on the Athos peninsula, through their ascetic devotions, love and humility, reaching great spiritual heights.

Among the places of monastic asceticism that have chosen the rule of the avaton as their form of organization we can also mention: Saint Sava’s Monastery in the Judean Desert, Saint Dionysius Monastery on Mount Olympus, Saint Visarion – Dousikou Monastery in Greece, Saint John the Theologian Monastery on the Island of Patmos, Mahairas Monastery in Cyprus, Simvoulio Hristou Monastery in Cyprus, the Hermitage of All Saints Sunday and of the Archangels of Valaam Monastery in Russia and Frăsinei Monastery in Romania. Also in Romania, following the Athonite model, the monasteries of Ponor in Alba district, one of nuns and one of monks, the Almaș Hermitage in Arad district and the Monastery of St. John the Baptist – Comanca in Valcea district, have been founded in recent decades.

In addition to these monasteries, there are also some monasteries that were established as avaton monasteries, but over time their organizational form has changed, and today they have a semi-avaton regime. In these monasteries, monks and nuns carry out their activities during the day in areas to which visitors are not allowed. During this time, the lay employees of the monasteries take on the task of guiding the worshippers. Services are conducted in the Athonite tradition. The mo­nasteries are closed to visitors during liturgical services and during the night. Among the monasteries with a semi-avaton order are: the monasteries of Meteora in Greece, the monasteries of St. John the Baptist – Serres, Ormilia and Suroti, also in Greece, and the Old Agapia Monastery in Romania.

It can be seen, therefore, that the avaton rule is an ancient practice, which began with the establishment of the first monastic communities, and which has been preserved to the present day in many Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. This practice is not due to the disregard of women or of men, depending on the specificity of the monastery, but is a necessity for the more devout monastics, so that their minds do not wander in thinking of ephemeral things. Keeping this ancient rule, by cultivating the most comprehensive sense of virginity, monks can more easily devote themselves to their duties, continually reciting in their minds and hearts the prayer of Jesus, which cleanses man from all the defilements of sin and helps him to come closer to God and to sanctify his life.