Advertise on podcast: Maronite Meditations

A very good rule of life is to not talk about, to not even mention, other people, unless we have a good reason. This rule follows from basic moral principles of Christianity, and from psychological considerations. It is particularly well-suited totoday’s world, and includes not only use of the tongue but all forms of communication, including social media.

We are going to work through some of Sebastian Brock’s invaluable book The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and theSpiritual Life. It is an anthology of materials from Syriac writers,beginning at the very start with Aphrahat, although not including the Odes of Solomon . Little is known of Aphrahat, “the Persian Sage,” who: “… was evidently a prominent figure inthe Christian Church in the Persian Empire …” Aphrahat wrote 23 homilies known as the Demonstrations. Number 4 of these is the earliest surviving Christian text on prayer, other than those which deal with the Our Father. His writings were influential in the later Syriac tradition, and even translated into Armenian. The Demonstration on prayer opens powerfully: "Purity of heart constitutes prayer more than do all the prayers that are uttered out aloud, and silence united to a mind that is sincere is better than the loud voice of someone crying out."            Purity of heart constitutes prayer more than do all the prayers that are uttered out aloud, and silence united to a mind that is sincere is better than the loud voice of someone crying out.

We now consider the significance of what Blosius has to say about life, and how that melds into what he wrote about the oneness of God, and how that unfolds in the world.

We do a simple breathing meditation based on this statement by Blosius: "When he is occupied with conversation and business, if he is unable to attend freely to God, he must yet beware of entirely leaving the inner chamber of his heart, thus going away from God Himself, but he must continue tobreathe out some secret affection to Him, so that directly this outward occupation is over he may return to himself, and leaving all that is not God, may apply his whole soul to Him once more. "

Blosius says that we can divide our attention when working in the world: we are aware of what we are doing and “must yet beware of entirely leaving the inner chamber of (our) heart.” Yet we must return to contemplation of eternal light, which we cannot unless we are free of attachment to externals. Further, God can allow us to suffer dryness of heart to realise our dependence of God. Also, sweet sensation can be granted to those who are living very evil lives, not to show they have sanctity, but rather to show that God manifests His goodness. Blosius also says we should invoke the saints because: “The saint should be regarded as present in God, to whom he is united.”  We should refer all beauty “to the glory and praise of God, who is the fountain and origin of all things.” Whoever is close to God has all, for God has and contains in Himself, everything that delights or can give pleasure. “Every kind of perfection found divided among different created things, in Him is found united, and He, as He is the archetype, or original type, and exemplar, or eminent model, of all, is Himself all.” All things in God are one.

Blosius said that even when we are occupied with conversation and business, we are able to attend to God, not entirely leaving the inner chamber of our hearts. He suggested two prayers or aspirations. First, one suited to the Illuminative Way: “…Grant me to dwell with Thee in the sanctuary of my soul ; grant that by steadfast thought, clear knowledge and fervent love, I may always be able to flow into Thee.”  Then the aspiration suited to the Unitive Way. "These words alone: "O Lord God," if from time to time they are thought over and repeated with a devout heart, are able to maintain a man inthe presence of God, or in God, and to shut out from his mind wandering imaginations and vain thoughts.”

Blosius said that just as the three Persons of God work together in inseparable union, so do those three powers of the mind. The memory recalls nothing without the intellect and the will ; the intellect does not understand or know anything without the memory and the will ; and the will desires nothing without the intellect and the memory. Blosius says that union with God, is Introversion, and constantly calling back the mind to Him.  "The mind must be diligently called back from wandering thoughts to God everywhere present. The instability of our minds can be overcome by the grace of God and persevering effort. It is possible, whatever we are doing to bear in mind God's presence, and this is the chief means of introversion. The presence of God everywhere is to be firmly believed, and the intention is to be turned to it in every action.” We also look at distractions and curiosity. We see that although these are not necessarily bad in themselves, still, they are bad in taking us from the search for God. Usually, we are mot free from distractions when we are identified - when our attention is captured by an activity (t.v., sport, talking). In those activities, our attention is narrowed and is looking at the world. In higher activities, we are not so identified, and our spirits have to be more open - this means that distractions have more opportunity.

The editor of Blosius' book distinguishes ordinary andextraordinary contemplation. He wrote: “…ordinary contemplation means a close union with God in intellect and will, which is the result of faithful correspondence to the grace he bestows according to the ordinary laws of his providence in the supernatural life.” “Extraordinary contemplation is a singular and miraculous union of mind with God, by simple intuition, accompanied with most ardent love, exceeding the ordinary  laws of his providence in the supernatural life.” From humility, we should not presume to ask for extraordinary contemplation than for the gift of miracles or prophecy.” But we can ask for ordinary contemplation, because the gift of contemplation increases charity. Blosius tries to indicate “the wonderful closeness of spiritual union between the purified soul and the infinite majestyof God in mystical contemplation.” The editor notes an error called Quietism, saying: “Amongst others things Molinos contended that the "interior lifeconsists in annihilating the powers of the soul"; that is the memory, intellect and will. St Thomas, on the contrary, teaches that they should be employed in God's service.” He says that the third and highest part of the soul, called the mind or the apex, that is, the highest summit of the spirit, is the simple and God-like basis or groundwork of the soul, that is, the simple essence of the soul sealed with the image of God. When considered in relation to this spiritual basis of the soul, life is called super-essential, through which both the spiritual and active life are perfected. From the mind itself the three higher powers flow, and re-flow again into it, as rays of light emanate from the sun. Here, in truth, the likeness of God shines out in a wonderful way. For as the Father and the Son and the HolyGhost are three Persons, but one God, so the memory, intellect and will are three powers, but one mind. And just as the three Persons of God work together in inseparable union, so do those three powers of the mind. The memory recalls nothing without the intellect and the will ; the intellect does not understandor know anything without the memory and the will ; and the will desires nothing without the intellect and the memory.

We meditate upon the teachings of contemplative teachings of Blosius: Francois-Louis de Blois, Blosius the Venerable, was born in October 1506.   He has been called “the Doctor of the presence of God.” It is said that “Union with God was the theme of his life … he knew that such was to be obtained only by prayer and self-discipline.” Healways spoke of the “spiritual ascetic,” asceta spiritualis.  A summary of his Book of Spiritual Instruction (Institutio Spiritualis), says that “Blosius directs the eye of the soul away from itself, its own miseries andshortcomings, to God, his beauty and perfection. … If souls aiming at holiness can only be got to look at God instead of themselves, the battle is more than half won, victory becomes certain.”  The editor says that: “By contemplation is meant the raising up of the mind to God by intuition, accompanied by most ardent love. We mean by intuition a mental sight or view of the mind seeing truth without the intervention of argument, testimonyor reflections. … It is an experiential perception of God, not merely speculative, practical as well as theoretical; it is a union of will with him, and not a mere intellectual apprehension.”

Meditation, contemplation, and mysticism are conceptsthe meaning of which is forever changing. They have meant different things in different religions throughout the world. Even within one faith in one place and at one time, practitioners may be engaged in very different types of meditation and contemplation. Many religious sub-cultures  have no concept of mysticism. The diversity of prayer and activity within modern Catholicism is by no means unique, although the absolute number of people interested in mysticism may be greater thanpreviously. Let us take “meditation” as being a turning within, either to pray, or to ponder a spiritual matter. The meditator is mentally focussed. We shall understand “contemplation” as being meditation minus but also meditation plus. Contemplation is meditation minus in that, during contemplation, a contemplative is entirely still, not even walking around. It is meditation plus in that, like meditation it has a mental element, but in addition the contemplative uses high quality attention:he is internally vigilant, watching the movement of thoughts, feelings, and associations within ourselves. That is, the contemplative is present to his own thought.

I critique the notion that we can use the Q hypothesis to reconstruct the distinctive theology of Ss Matthew and Luke.

The arguments given for the Q hypothesis (that Ss Matthew and Luke used a document which St Mark probably did not have) is not so firmly grounded as assumed. Certainly, I would say, the case for Q has to be made out with strong arguments as to why Matthew or Luke cannot have had the other’s Gospel. If that was so, there is no need for the Q hypothesis. But as we shall see, there are in fact several deep assumptions beneath Q: namely, that there are too many contradictions and divergences amongMatthew and Luke for one to have had the other. And beneath much of the informal contemporary Bible studies establishment is the profound assumption, indeed, the dogmatically held act of faith, that there cannot have been any true prophecies, or any miracles. To maintain this, they have to separate the evangelists from first-hand knowledge of the life of Christ. They have todowngrade the evangelists from inspired writers, bringing a higher level of truth into this world: men illuminated and illuminating, into pamphleteers, making idiosyncratic and wilful changes to the texts available to them, to present as historically based a ministry and teaching which they themselves knew to be their own creative production. I have put this bluntly, but I do not believe unfairly.

Many academics assert that the names of the Gospels are not originals, and the evangelists were anonymous. I suggest this goes far beyond the evidence. The Gospels were produced in a specific historical context: the early Church. They are the documents of the early Church, in a very real sense. I am not even sure that contemporary ideas of anonymity apply here: the Gospels were written within the doors of the church, so to speak. What the Gospels record is the message of Our Lord, not of any one human being, no matter how eminent, and the Church realised that multipleperspectives were needed, just as different perspectives on a landscape may enable us to see what we would miss if we only had one vantage position.

Prof Bart Ehrman dogmatically states as a fact that the books of the New Testament were written “to different communities …” We have recently seen that some, at least, of the evidence presented for this theory could be described as “quiteweak.” But many of the epistles were anciently known as the catholic epistles, that is, the letters written to all churches. We examine and critique some of Ehrman's contentions.

We continue last week's critique of Ashton's argument that there was a "Johannine community" for which the Gospel was written (as opposed to for all Christians." We explore, along the way, the "fallacy of the fatal possibility," the invalid argument that a thesis must be wrong because another thesis could be right.