The spirit is the mind’s eye through which we see God, face to face, and by which we partake of the divine nature, and are transfigured, in this life by degrees, through our participation in the mystical body of Christ. Here is a quotation from a 7th century Greek Father, St Anastasius of Sinai. I read it in the Office of Readings for the Feast of the Transfiguration. This is from a sermon by the saintwritten for this day.
‘Let us listen to the holy voice of God which summons us from on high, from the holy mountain top. There we must hasten – I make bold to say – like Jesus who is our leader and has gone before us into heaven. There, with him, may the eyes of our mind shine with his light and the features of our soul be made new; may we be transfigured with him and moulded to his image, ever become divine, being transformed in an ever greater degree of glory.’
I have written a number of articles recently emphasising this idea of personal transformation through an ordered and active participation in the liturgy. By this transformation we shine with the light of Christ and experience profound joy in this life. Oh that all Christians could live this, then we might, in turn, see a profound and powerful change in society through their engagement with it. This is what will call people around us into the Church.
This is a force that can change society and change the culture, but it all happens through our everyday human relations. It is tempting to think that we should focus on influential figures, high profile people to win mass attention to our causes. But a publicity campaign is not a personal relationship and cannot touch us in the same way (although it can open the door). For those who think that relying on personal contact will be too slow to effect anything. However, if it really is true, as I have told, that even in a human race of 6 billion, no one is more than six personal relationships apart from anyone else, then this suggests that it is not only the most powerful but also the most efficient way of reaching most people.
Notice also, St Anastasius’s reference to (in translation) the ‘mind’s eye’. This, it seems to me, is the spirit by which we establish the most important personal relationship by which, in turn, the personal transformation described by St Anastasius is acheived.
Past articles describing the anthropology of body, soul and spirit are here and here. In his book The Wellspring of Worship, Jean Corbon describes how liturgy is the means by which we participate in Christ’s transfiguration.
A summary of what they describe follows: the spirit is the highest part of the soul. It is that part of the soul which touches on God, a portal for the grace that pours out from God ‘transfiguring’ us into the image and the likeness of God. The divinely created order of the human person is the spirit, which is closest to God, rules the rest of the soul which in turn rules the body. All move together in union and communion with God. It is our participation in the liturgy that establishes this personal relationship with God at the most profound level.
The painting above is by Titian; and below by Rembrandt and it is of St Anastasius in His Monastery, ‘the new Moses’. He is venerated in both Eastern and Western Churches.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
“we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image [εικονα] from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:18).
Veneration of icons not in the Bible, yeah, right.
…and this is pertaining to what?… and to whom?
The context of 2 Corinthians Chapter 3 is the continuation of the discourse on the nature of Christian life, began in verse 14 of the previous chapter:
“[14] …thanks be to God, who always maketh us to triumph in Christ Jesus, and manifesteth the odour of his knowledge by us in every place. [15] For we are the good odour of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. [16] To the one indeed the odour of death unto death: but to the others the odour of life unto life.”
The metaphor of “odor” then changes into that of Christians themselves being “our epistle, written in our hearts … the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:2).
The confidence of the glory that awaits us is then contrasted, first with the glory of the law, written on stone and evocative of condemnation and death, and secondly with the glory of Moses who had a veil put on his face because he saw the face of God and became impossible for the Jews to look at (vv 7-9, compare Exodus 34:29-35).
But that is functionally the same veil that was torn in the Temple upon the consummation of the sacrifice of the Cross (Matthew 27:51, and other synoptics), the veil that separate the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple. That veil remains clouding the understanding of the Old Testament by the unconverted Jews: “the veil is upon their heart” (vv14-15).
But for us, who are converted, the veil is taken away (v.17), for us there is liberty. Form what? See the context: from the letter of the law (v6), which would include, we now remember, the clause about the “graven images”. So what to we, the liberated, do? We are “all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face” and “are transformed”. But what is in front of us? “The image” — the icon. We are transformed into the icon which we are beholding. We become the Letter of God and Odor of Life as we look at the Holy Icons.
Makes sense?
But why are you telling us this? How is it relevant? Furthermore, the tone of it (and perhaps I am misreading) seems to suggest that you think that I am going to find this controversial. If this is so, why?
David, I am very sorry to have sounded confrontational.
I wanted to add the quote from 2 Corinthians because it clearly is St Anastasius’ inspiration; I also pointed out the often overlooked fact that the passage from St. Paul is biblical evidence for the veneration of the Holy Icons, the subject dear to both of us.
The sarcastic comment was not meant for you but rather for those who deny the importance of icons in the Liturgy. Since there was no one of such persuasion on the thread, it sounded as if I am arguing with you. I apologize.
I, further, took you question as a request to elaborate, which I did.
Ah, thank you!
Hi Alexey
Thank you for your comments, but can I make a request. Please in future don’t be sarcastic or rude about people who hold different points of view. It is legitimate on this blog to disagree but not to be rude. In future, I will not post comments that have that tone. The reason for this is that there is that I think that it is much more productive to stress the positive rather than the negative.
The reason that even allowed it to go up in the first place is that, as I explained although I couldn’t understand why, you appeared to be disagreeing with me and so I felt that I would try to see what it was that you disagreeing with. As it turned out that wasn’t the case.
Thanks
David
I was glad to read the clarification.
Well, the misconception about certain Catholic practices, allegedly, having no Biblical warrant are so common that one has to assume some readers, but obviously not you, David, would have it. Again I am very sorry for the sarcastic comment in the beginning. I will take you comment to heart.
While on this topic of correcting and explaining posts: is there a technical possibility of getting notification of subsequent replies in the email?