Exomologetarion

P R E F A C E

Almost all that were wounded by sin left hierarchs and confessors and ran to shabbily dressed Nikodemos, in order to find their cure and consolation from their afflictions; not only monks from monasteries, sketes and kellia, but also many Christians from various places.¹

In his Introduction to the first English language publication of St Nikodemos’ ‘Handbook of Spiritual Counsel’ (Symbouleutikon Encheiridion)² George S. Bebis wrote "There is no doubt that ‘The Manual of Confession’ (Exomologetarion) is one of the most impressive of the books of St Nikodemos, an edifying and helpful spiritual book³ and later mused that An English translation of this book would be most beneficial."⁴ The Exomologetarion to which he makes reference was first published in the year 1794 at the press of Nicholas Glykeus of Ioannina in Venice and has since seen numerous reprintings (e.g. 1804, 1818, 1868, 1893), including a 1799 translation published in Constantinople in the Turkish language (though in Greek characters) intended for the use of Turkish speaking Greek Orthodox Christians. Now, thanks to the inspired work of the Reverend George Dokos, who translated the work from Greek into English, and the devotion to the Patristic phronema by the Reverend Peter Heers of Uncut Mountain Press, we hold in our hands the long-awaited English translation of the Exomologetarion composed by our Venerable and Godbearing Father Nikodemos the Hagiorite.⁵

The son of Anthony Kallivourtsis and his wife Anastasia (Agatha in monasticism), St Nikodemos was born on the Aegean island of Naxos, one of the Cyclades, in 1749 and baptized with the name Nicholas. His first teacher was Archimandrite Chrysanthos Aitolos (+1785), brother of the New Martyr and Peer-of-the Apostles, St Cosmas Aitolos (1714-1779).⁶ In 1764 young Nicholas was taken by his father to Smyrna where he was enrolled as a boarding student at the famous Evangelike Schole where he studied under the renowned educator Hierotheos Voulismas. Because of the violent persecution of Christians by the Turks which broke out in 1770, Nicholas fled Smyrna and returned to his native island of Naxos where, for the next five years, he served as grammateus (secretary) and synkellos (attendant) to Anthimos Vardis, the Metropolitan of Paros and Naxos. It was during this period of his life that he came into contact with three Athonite monks – Hieromonks Gregory and Niphon and Elder Arsenios the Peloponnesian – who, because they were Kollyvades,⁷ were exiled from the Holy Mountain and had found refuge on Naxos. It was from these three monastics that Nicholas first learned of Athonite asceticism and spiritual life, including the practice of unceasing prayer and hesychia.

In the year 1775, Nicholas, now having an insatiable desire to be formed in the monastic life, traveled to the small island of Hydra in order to meet the greatest Kollyvas, St Makarios Notaras (1731-1835), the Metropolitan of Corinth.⁸ Thus began his association with St Makarios which, over the next several decades, resulted in their collaborating to produce numerous soul-profiting works. While on Hydra, Nicholas also made the acquaintance of another experienced holy elder, Sylvester of Caesarea, whose life and counsels inspired in young Nicholas an even greater longing for a life of stillness and unceasing prayer. Thus, later that year, twenty-six year old Nicholas left Hydra for the Holy Mountain, bearing letters of recommendation from Elder Sylvester.

Arriving on the Holy Mountain, Nicholas went to the Sacred Monastery of Dionysiou where he made his metanoia before the holy Elder Makarios Dionysiatis and began his formal monastic formation. There he was tonsured a monk of the Microschema,⁹ having his baptismal name of Nicholas changed to Nikodemos. He remained at Dionysiou for the next two years.

In 1777 his friend and spiritual guide, St Makarios of Corinth, visited the Holy Mountain. St Nikodemos met with him at Karyes, the capital of the Holy Mountain, and began what would become a lifelong collaboration of producing spiritual masterpieces by preparing for publication The Philokalia (first edition published in Venice in 1782), The Evergetinos (first edition published in Venice in 1783), and Peri tes Synechous Metalepseos ton Theion Mysterion or ‘Concerning Continual Communion of the Divine Mysteries’ (first edition published in Venice in 1783).¹⁰ After St Makarios departed from the Holy Mountain, St Nikodemos was given hospitality at the kelli of St George commonly known as the kelli of the Skourtaioi. Here a bond of love was forged between St Nikodemos and that brotherhood which would nourish and sustain him (both spiritually and physically!) on many occasions through the remainder of his life.

Having learned of the spiritual giant and divinely-minded coenobiarch St Paissii Velichkovskii (1722-1794),¹¹ who, having been trained in hesychasm on the Holy Mountain, was serving as Schema-Archimandrite at the Moldavian Monastery of Neamts (in present day Romania) and spiritual father to over one thousand monks, St Nikodemos determined that he would visit him and receive spiritual sustenance. He began his journey to Neamts by boarding a ship, but shortly after its departure a violent storm arose at sea which forced the ship to moor at the island of Thassos. Abandoning his plans to visit St Paissii, St Nikodemos returned to the Holy Mountain and eventually settled at a skete near Pantocratoros where he placed himself under obedience to one of his first instructors in the ascetic life, the famous Elder Arsenios the Peloponnesian, who had returned to Athos from his exile on Naxos. In 1782, when Elder Arsenios again withdrew from the Holy Mountain, this time to the tiny and barren island of Skyropoula (south of Athos and across from Euboia), St Nikodemos accompanied him and struggled together with him in asceticism for one year, living, as St Nikodemos himself writes, the life of a worker and laborer: digging, sowing, harvesting, and every day doing all the other things by which the toilsome life on barren islands is characterized.¹²

In 1783 St Nikodemos returned to the Holy Mountain where he was tonsured a monk of the Megaloschema¹³ by the holy Elder Damascene Stavroudas. He then purchased and withdrew to the kalyva of Theonas near Pantocratoros, where he was joined by a fellow Naxian (named John in the world, but Hierotheos in monasticism) who served him for six years as his disciple and synkellos.¹⁴ In 1784 his friend and patron, St Makarios of Corinth visited the Holy Mountain for a second time and encouraged St Nikodemos to correct and prepare for publication many edifying works. It was at this time that St Nikodemos began his composition of our present book, the Exomologetarion or ‘The Manual of Confession’ which is a compilation drawn from various works and Exomologetaria from libraries throughout the Holy Mountain, including that by Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, combined with the Saint’s own inspired spiritual counsels.

St Nikodemos’ Exomologetarion is a masterpiece of spiritual insight and direction which is composed of three distinct sections: the first being the qualifications of a true confessor, the second being the thirty-eight canons and seventeen penances of St John ‘the Faster’¹⁵ together with commentaries and interpretations, and the third being St Nikodemos’ own fatherly counsels and a homily concerning the Mystery of Confession.

After spending two decades exploring the manuscript-rich monastic libraries on the Holy Mountain, editing and authoring scores of spiritual books, and composing sacred hymns for numerous saints, St Nikodemos returned in 1809 to the kelli of his beloved Skourtaioi brotherhood. On July 5 of that year he suffered a stroke from which he was never to recover. Knowing that the end of his earthly life was drawing near, St Nikodemos made his confession, was anointed with the Euchelion in the Mystery of Holy Unction and, each day, partook of the Immaculate Body and Precious Blood. On July 13 he asked that the sacred relics of two of his spiritual fathers, Ss Makarios and Parthenios, be brought to him. Having reverently kissed and embraced them, he made the sign of the Cross, crossed his hands on his breast, straightened his legs, and patiently awaited his falling asleep in Christ which came quietly early the next morning – July 14, 1809. He was buried at the kelli of the Skourtaioi.

In 1953 the Sacred Monastery of Megesti Lavra, oldest and first in rank among the twenty ruling monasteries of the Holy Mountain, of which the kelli of the Skourtaioi is a dependency, petitioned the Holy Synod of the Oecumenical Patriarchate for the glorification of St Nikodemos. Two years later, on May 31, 1955, the Holy Synod issued the Synodical Decree whereby the clarion of the Spirit and teacher of virtue,¹⁶ the shabbily dressed Nikodemos the Hagiorite was officially numbered among the saints of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.¹⁷ May his blessings be upon this book to the glory of the All-holy Trinity and the upbuilding of Holy Orthodoxy, and by his intercessions may we all be saved.

† B a s i l

Bishop of Wichita and Mid-America

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

July 14, 2005

The Commemoration of St Nikodemos the Hagiorite

INTRODUCTION*

by Protopresbyter George Metallinos

I consider the translation and publication in the English language of the Exomologetarion of the great theologian and Father of the Church, Nikodemos the Hagiorite, to be a momentous event. It is an important pastoral work which has, from its very first appearance, been of tremendous help both to confessors and those confessing. The reading and study, however, as well as the pastoral use, of this book in our day and age require familiarization with the Patristic terminology of the author, so as to make an Orthodox understanding and interpretation possible. For this reason, then, I express my heartfelt gratitude to the publishers of the English language edition of the book for requesting of me the following instructive introduction, for the service of all who will read it, both clergy and laity.

The Exomologetarion or Manual of Confession of this great Neo-Hesychastic Father of our Church¹ has given rise to lengthy discussions.² Its language and style pose challenges, and the question is often raised as to how one of the redactors of the Philokalia³ could have composed such a work. However, if we are to interpret a text of this kind, we must first come to an understanding of its ecclesiological perspective. The aim of my introduction is not to analyze the work, but to provide a psychological and hermeneutical treatment of its overall structure and to ascertain its pastoral goals.

1. Let us bear in mind the structure and lineaments of the work. It begins with an address To the Most Reverend Spiritual Fathers in Christ (pp. 65-67), to which is added an Epigram for the Present Instruction (p. 69). There follows: Part One: Instruction to the Spiritual Father (pp. 71-211). In Part Two, after brief prefatory remarks about the author thereof, The Canons of St. John the Faster Together With Their Interpretation are set forth, with explanations by St. Nikodemos (pp. 213-263). To these are added Some Pertinent Subjects Outside of the Canons of the Faster (pp. 264-297). After a brief address (pp. 301-304), To The Brethren in Christ: Greeting, and an Epigram on the subject (p. 305), Part Three – Counsel for the Penitent (pp. 307-387) – commences. To this is attached a Homily on Repentance: Concerning the Audacity of Those Who Intentionally Sin with the Hope That They Can Confess and Repent (pp. 389-454).

St. Nikodemos composed the Exomologetarion after occupying himself with the writings of St. Symeon the New Theologian,⁴ and therefore in a spiritual atmosphere that was purely Hesychastic and imbued with the precepts of the Philokalia; not only is it evident that the work is a compilation of texts, but the author himself clearly states this.⁵ Consequently, there is no basis in reality for the idea that we are dealing with a genre thitherto completely unknown in the Church,⁶ since this kind of work is not foreign to the literary output of the Greek nation during its enslavement to the Turks.⁷ At any rate, it behooves us to locate the sources of this misunderstanding. Gerhard Podskalsky, evidently in order to explain the ostensibly scholastic nature of the work, characterizes it, in terms of its structure, as probably based on a Latin original.⁸ But the notion that St. Nikodemos worked from Latin models – which, in the past, led to some preposterous speculations – has now been decisively laid to rest by Mr. Emmanuel Frangiskou,⁹ who, in the wake of his critical intrusion into the debate, has contributed significantly to demolishing an essentially groundless attempt to make unjust war against this Saint; and for this, we theologians are grateful to him.

St. Nikodemos himself states that he used other works for his Exomologetarion (compiled from various sources,¹⁰ compiled from different teachers¹¹). He was translating not from a single text (written in Greek or some other language), but was drawing on diverse works of similar character, using the usual method of compilation that he employs in his writings.¹² In any case, with the exception of his wholly original liturgical commentaries, St. Nikodemos, following the mind of the Fathers,¹³ did not consider it a defect to base oneself on the works of others, since in this way the traditional practice of the Church is rekindled and renewed and Her continuity is made manifest by a plurality of voices. Nonetheless, whatever the Saint took from some other writer was always passed through the spiritual transformer of his conscience and his purely Orthodox and ecclesiastical mind-set.¹⁴ Hence, he does not hesitate to say: "[We] took great pains to gather together from various teachers the present concise counsel.¹⁵ He states that he has before him the most accurate manuscripts of Exomologetaria from the Holy Mountain, which are profitably used by all of the experienced spiritual Fathers on the Holy Mountain,¹⁶ and he recommends spiritual Fathers to study the Exomologetarion by Chrysanthos of Jerusalem,¹⁷ in conjunction with the Sacred Canons,¹⁸ as well as the printed works of Emmanuel Romanitis, Ho Pneumatikos Didaskomenos (Instructions for Spiritual Fathers) and Ho Metanoon Didaskomenos (Instructions for Penitents),¹⁹ the works of an author who, through his translations, provided Nikodemos with material for other of his writings.²⁰ He also uses an Orthodoxos Homologia (Orthodox Confession),²¹ and he is familiar with the Exomologetarion printed many years ago by one Neophytos of Cyprus, surnamed Rhodinos, who was a heretic.²² Hereby, he tacitly reproaches the Ecumenical Patriarch Kallinikos III, who republished this work, with his name on the title page, but without purging it of its erroneous ideas.²³ As well, he mentions a newly printed Exomologetarion for the sick,²⁴ which has recently been published under the name of St. Nikodemos²⁵ (though His Eminence, Metropolitan Paul of Sweden, considers this a misattribution,²⁶ asserting that the work belongs to Methodios Anthrakitis (1736)²⁷).

The Exomologetarion of St. Nikodemos is based, specifically, on the thirty-eight Canons of St. John the Faster²⁸ and on his seventeen Penances, which were discovered in manuscripts located in Athonite monasteries. He translates these canonical texts, simplifying them linguistically, and also comments on them, adding detailed footnotes, following the method that he employs in the Pedalion (The Rudder). He holds St. John the Faster in great esteem: The divine Faster established his Canons with the discernment of the Holy Spirit…²⁹ He recommends that Spiritual Fathers apply the Canons in the way that St. John the Faster did,³⁰ and this because of the condescension that the latter employed (a Spiritual Father should thus tell the person confessing to him: I have rather placed you under a rule according to the lenient Faster.³¹). The criteria used by St. Nikodemos in selecting these Canons are pastoral and, as well, purely ecclesiastical (criteria which the entire Orthodox Church has generally accepted and does accept).³² The great fall in the spiritual level of humanity rendered it imperative to use St. John’s Canons, which were governed by a spirit of leniency greater than that of the ancient Fathers.³³ St. Nikodemos was also aware that the Faster was reproached for the small number of years that he prescribed for abstinence from Communion.³⁴ St. John provided a new yardstick for repentance: he shortened the period of abstinence from the Mystery of the divine Eucharist,³⁵ but he laid greater emphasis on the ascetical dimension, something which, for reasons that are easy to understand, Hesychasts like St. Nikodemos upheld. The Saint offers a masterly explanation of this shift in the Church’s pastoral practice;³⁶ along with the Faster, he emphasizes an ascetical rule (kanon), which, more than anything else, keeps the penitent in a state of constant vigilance and guides him towards true repentance. There is thus a continuity between the category of mourners (penitents) that existed in Christian antiquity and those Faithful who put into practice and fulfill the ascetical rule given to them. The method changes, but the same spirit is preserved, a spirit which, in both cases, governs the process of repentance and the restoration of the believer to good standing in the Church.

2. The ideas expressed in the Exomologetarion are at odds with the anti-Pietistic tendency that prevails in our day.³⁷ The attempt to overstate the admittedly pernicious spirit of Pietism³⁸ little helps those who ardently apply their anti-Pietistic criteria to approach the work of St. Nikodemos with purely Orthodox ecclesiological criteria. Somewhere along the line, a delicate balance is lost. At the same time, an evaluation of his works that proceeds from a realm in which asceticism takes priority leads to views that are at times equally hyperbolic; such views constitute a challenge from the right. Thus, two diametrically opposed assessments have been formulated.

The second view is expressed by the venerable Elder of blessed memory, Father Theokletos of Dionysiou.³⁹ St. Nikodemos distinguishes himself, according to Father Theokletos, as a confessor of rare talent… In this book, he proves to be an expert interpreter of the penances prescribed by the Sacred Canons, a truly Patristic preacher of repentance…. He is so gentle and compunctionate in his exposition of the Mystery of repentance, confession, and forgiveness that he arouses those who are indifferent towards this Mystery to repentance and confession.⁴⁰ The first view is set forth by Professor Chrestos Yannaras,⁴¹ who summarizes his critique of St. Nikodemos as follows: It is, rather, inevitable that an ever-increasing number of people should sever their ties with the Church after just one experience of a traumatic confession based on the principles of a juridical transaction⁴² – and he has in mind, here, the Exomologetarion of St. Nikodemos. He concludes: The God of Augustine, Anselm, and Nikodemos, the God Who terrorizes us with His sadistic demands for justice, is of no interest to humanity.⁴³ These opinions are shared by others, too.⁴⁴ How is one to respond to them?

It is undeniable that the language of the Exomologetarion appears intensely scholastic at many points, and this is something that cannot be overlooked.⁴⁵ Academic theology in our day has largely recovered its Orthodox identity – primarily in linguistic terms – and its style has been purged of scholastic influences; as such, it views the language of the Exomologetarion as repulsive and offensive. However, we should not forget that every artifact is a product of its era and embodies the characteristics of that era. The Exomologetarion, too, is a product of the ecclesiastical idiom that was in vogue during the period of the Turkish domination,⁴⁶ and it echoes both the climate in which it was written and its Western influences,⁴⁷ reformulating the Tradition of the Church with the means provided by that period. This is all the more so because such a work was intended for a broad stratum of the people and was couched in terms that they could understand. However, we should not confuse language with the spirit of Holy Tradition, which is preserved, not simply by language and intellectual expressions, but above all by the practice of asceticism and the entire spiritual struggle. St. Nikodemos, despite the language of the Exomologetarion and other related works of his, is faithful to the Hesychastic tradition and is a successor to St. Gregory Palamas, by virtue of the ascetical experience to which he fully adhered.

Additionally, it is a fact, overlooked by the critics of St. Nikodemos, that his affinity with the juridical Western theory of satisfaction⁴⁸ is only a matter of terminology, and it is this terminological resemblance that allows such critics to put forth their familiar, but superficial, equation of his view with the Western view. Linguistically speaking, of course, the correspondence is easy to demonstrate. St. Nikodemos talks about an infinite offense, an eternal recompense, the gratification of divine righteousness, the wrath of God, and the like: "Do you wish to understand, sinner, the infinite offense that sin is against God? Understand it by the infinite payment that the Son of God made because of it, with so many sufferings and such a disgraceful death.⁴⁹ And elsewhere: According to the theologians, sin is infinite;⁵⁰ and as an offense to the infinite God,⁵¹ no finite creature, especially an impure creature like a sinner, by works or by fulfilling a rule, can be loosed from it."⁵² And there are many other similar expressions in the same vein.

Mortal sins, St. Nikodemos writes in another place, render one who commits them an enemy of God and liable to everlasting death in Hell.⁵³ Sin does not bring harm (only) to the sinner, but also to God.⁵⁴ Thus, God becomes a punisher and an avenger in order to restore order where it has been disturbed: For the impartial righteousness of God is not pleased by any other means than by the very person who sinned, and for that person to be chastised.⁵⁵ Penances (that is, penitential canons or rules of prayer) are a small punishment whereby the penitent appeases the great wrath that God has towards him.⁵⁶

Admittedly, if these phrases are detached from their context, they immediately take on a cruel, sadistic character, overturning the theology of divine love which permeates the spirit of Orthodox (ecclesiastical) soteriology (see Jn. 3:16, Rom. 5:8, etc.). For this reason, it is necessary to place them in the entire context of St. Nikodemos’ thought and activity.

Now, if we study the Exomologetarion as a whole and put these phrases in its more general theological and pastoral context, we are easily led to a diametrically opposed understanding of them. The term satisfaction occurs very frequently in this work of St. Nikodemos,⁵⁷ but it has no connection with the vindictive attitude of some inexorable divine Judge; it has, rather, to do with the rule assigned to the penitent.⁵⁸ The meaning of the term is defined by the author himself as follows: It is the actual fulfillment of the rule given by the Spiritual Father. That is, it does not refer to any sadistic authority figure, but indicates the good pleasure and joy (loving satisfaction) of God over the fulfillment of a rule (the taking of ones spiritual medicine in its totality) by the spiritually ailing penitent, just as every doctor rejoices when his patient completes the treatment that he (the doctor) has prescribed. In other words, whereas the Western spirit consists in the vindictive demand on the part of God for the restoration of His wounded dignity, here the love of God is made manifest in the cure of His ailing child. After spending many anguished days examining the relevant passages, I have come to the conclusion that the idea of satisfaction (hikanopoiesis), in the parlance of St. Nikodemos, corresponds to the notion of being well pleasing (or acceptable) and its cognates (euarestein, euarestesis, euarestein to Theo), which are very commonly encountered in ecclesiastical texts (cf. [W]ithout faith [total self-surrender] it is impossible to please [God] (Heb. 11:6); For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men (Rom. 14:18)). With regard to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the term satisfaction expresses what is meant by the Gospel phrase: This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3:17, etc.). Aside from this, it is inconceivable, to put it mildly, that anyone – and especially a theologian – could accept that St. Nikodemos, who was very Patristic and Orthodox in his other works, was caught up in Western error in his Exomologetarion and elsewhere!

Moreover, it is significant that the Saint draws, in the Exomologetarion, not on Western sources, but on the work Peri Mysterion (Concerning the Mysteries), by Gabriel Severos of Philadelphia, an authoritative theologian from the period of the Turkish captivity.⁵⁹ In particular, he defines abstinence from divine Communion as the satisfaction of satisfactions,⁶⁰ which is a necessary constituent of true repentance.⁶¹ In this context, satisfaction is divided into two aspects: the physical and the spiritual. The physical aspect consists in fasting, the eating of dry food, prostrations, and almsgiving to all and sundry. The spiritual aspect consists in compunctionate prayer.⁶² That is to say, satisfaction is consummated within the boundaries of the process of repentance, and when it is put into practice, it takes on a purely spiritual and totally non-juridical character. Furthermore, it can be documented historically that the practical dimension of the Mystery of Repentance was formed by the Church’s monastic practice, that is, by her ascetic practice.⁶³ As a Hesychast, St. Nikodemos remains absolutely faithful to this spirit.

3. It is from this point on that St. Nikodemos’ language begins to diverge from the Western Anselmian tradition. Western legalism is defined by Chrestos Yannaras as an individualistic effort,⁶⁴ as a juridical activity of individual propitiation⁶⁵ by the sinner, who stands alone and guilty before an implacable Deity, a just and retributive judge, Who thirsts insatiably for the satisfaction of His righteousness, which human sin has offended.⁶⁶ Aroused by the boundless sadism of His wounded ego,⁶⁷ God demands the punishment of the sinner. Penances are understood, not as an educative therapy provided by God in His lovingkindness for the healing of the sinner, but as a ransom which the sinner must pay.⁶⁸ These tendencies evolved in the framework of turning the true Church into a religion and reducing it to a form of individualistic moralism.⁶⁹

It is impossible to identify St. Nikodemos with this mentality, even if only superficially,⁷⁰ for the following reasons: (1) he had no direct contact with Western sources, because at this stage he operated freely within the parameters of hagiographical and Patristic language and tradition; (2) and though his scholastic expressions derive from writers of his era,⁷¹ they take on a purely hagiographical and Patristic meaning. For example, he observes that sin defiles the blood of Christ and insults His grace.⁷² However, he accurately quotes Hebrews 10:29: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace? Corresponding to the participle treading underfoot (the Son of God) is the application to God of the verb to harm,⁷³ in which his aim is to make clear to the people, in their own everyday language, the gravity of sin, and especially of mortal sin.

Furthermore, when he writes that sin is forgiven through the infinite satisfaction of Christ’s sacrifice,⁷⁴ he faithfully renders Titus 3:5: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, which is parallel to I John 1:7, …and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin; in addition, Christ is He Who taketh away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29) – or, as St. Basil the Great puts it, the forgiveness of sins is by the blood of Christ.⁷⁵

St. Nikodemos wishes, hereby, precisely to avoid a twofold danger: (1) that the sinner be led into quaking with guilt and the threat of condemnation,⁷⁶ or (2) that he form the impression that a rule, in and of itself, leads one to salvation. Forestalling similar superficial assurances, he teaches that sins are not forgiven through performing our rule, but through the mercy of God and through the satisfaction (i.e., the blood) of Jesus Christ.⁷⁷ God also punished sin in the Person of Jesus Christ with such a severe punishment, that all of the abovementioned punishments seem as but a shadow in comparison to it…⁷⁸ The purpose of these words, formulated in such a way that ordinary people could understand them, is to show how important the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is and to dissociate the idea of a rule from any demand for recompense,⁷⁹ making the Faithful aware of the fact that an ascetical rule simply makes a man receptive to Gods grace, by opening him up to it.⁸⁰ This is precisely what he means when he exhorts the sinner to propitiate divine righteousness with this temporal rule⁸¹: a man must become receptive to grace.

The use of the terms wrath, chastisement, enemy of God, wrath of God, guilty, punishment, and the like, is free, in the work of St. Nikodemos, from any juridical purport and makes it easy for readers to approach his teaching, which rests on firm hagiographical and Patristic foundations. We do not need to cite actual examples of every term. For the sake of argument, we will confine ourselves to a single passage from St. Gregory of Nyssa concerning the controversial term punishment: As each shall receive his wages, just as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 3:14), according to his labor, so also each shall receive punishment according to the extent of their negligence.⁸² This idiom, moreover, is customary in ecclesiastical worship and is therefore familiar to a believer who loves the divine services. Let us recall that the Prayer of Manasseh, King of Juda⁸³ is linguistically at odds with the Prayer of St. Basil the Great,⁸⁴ even though both are read at Great Compline. And these are certainly not the only examples.

4. Any anachronistic hermeneutical approach to the Exomologetarion, and to St. Nikodemos more generally, does an injustice to the Saint and his theology. I have already said that the language of the Exomologetarion is repugnant to today’s believer; but it is all the more repugnant to one who moves on the fringes of the Church’s life and experience. In this work, the Saint operates within the soteriological framework of the Church, in the spirit of the Philokalia. It is inadmissible to compartmentalize his personality, which remains forever integrated, unified, and inseparable, in keeping with the Neptic tradition of Orthodoxy (the prayer of the heart).⁸⁵

St. Nikodemos’ sole purpose is to make man aware of the essence of sin and its devastating power, since it jeopardizes his very salvation, depriving him of God’s grace and, thereby, of the capacity for adoption into divine sonship.⁸⁶ The true Gospel (Good News) is described by St. Nikodemos as adoption into sonship: It is a special and distinctive gift and a charisma so sublime that it makes the Holy Spirit dwell in you; He is present in you and acts in you in a way that is peculiar and distinct from His presence and activity in all other places, because He makes man a son of God and an heir of His kingdom.⁸⁷ It is for this reason that St. Nikodemos wishes to make man hate sin⁸⁸ (hate and abhor sin).⁸⁹ Hence, he covers every possible shade of sin in his analysis of the Decalogue and, of course, those that are most common in any age, such as sins of the flesh. Thereby, the Saint presents the struggling believer of his time with a spiritual mirror, although it is necessary that one be aware (and this includes the Spiritual Father, too) of what the illnesses of the soul, that is, sins, are, so that he may know how to cure them.⁹⁰ This is a matter, therefore, not of Latin casuistry, but rather of a medical diagnosis that is the necessary prerequisite for any cure.⁹¹

Consequently, the author does not offer an impersonal legal code⁹² but a classification of spiritual diseases, so that a spiritual Father might determine an appropriate prescription. St. Nikodemos always has in view the ideal of the authentic Christian and how a penitent can attain to this ideal. A Christian who does not live a Christian life is not a Christian, he observes,⁹³ basing himself on the Fathers.⁹⁴ Nikodemos has no patience⁹⁵ for the idea of a Christian committing mortal sins; which is to say, this is, for the Saint, intolerable! Indeed, he trembles at the mere thought of it. Thus, he does not offer half measures in the war against sin, but very drastic measures. And there is no measure more drastic than ascesis, that is, the spiritual struggle, which is laid down and conveyed by the Tradition of the Church. One who is a Christian only intellectually, and does not cultivate asceticism, cannot understand the spirit of St. Nikodemos, since the Saint regards as legendary the defining characteristics of asceticism, which correspond to the experience of the monastic Saints (e.g., St. Gerasimos, et al.).⁹⁶

As we have already said, St. Nikodemos emphasizes the authority of St. John the Faster, because, in place of lengthy abstinence from divine Communion, he puts the weight of repentance on the rule (on satisfaction). St. Nikodemos underscores in particular the importance of the ascetical rule, because he wants to help the Faithful to approach divine Communion more frequently,⁹⁷ without trivializing the Mystery in such a way that it loses its significance and place in the life of the Church. Indeed, the Jesuit Gerhard Podskalsky, in his assessment of the Exomologetarion, observes that its author is concerned, not only with the validity, but at the same time with the most fruitful possible reception of the Mysteries.⁹⁸ That is to say, we should avoid communing unworthily (I Cor. 11:27-29).⁹⁹

Consequently, any attempt to interpret the sacred Canons in legalistic or moralistic categories is foreign to St. Nikodemos.¹⁰⁰ The penances, the satisfaction, and the rule imposed by a Spiritual Father are not, in the end, a punishment or a chastisement, but, as he points out, entail one’s salvation. And here¹⁰¹ he cites the divine Chrysostom, who writes: These laws, then, of philanthropy let us learn also (which law of love Paul used on the fornicator). For if thou seest a horse hurrying down a precipice, thou appliest a bit and holdest him in with violence and lashest him frequently; although this is punishment, yet the punishment itself is the mother of safety. Thus act also in the case of those that sin. Bind him that hath transgressed until he have propitiated God; let him not go loose, that he be not bound the faster by the anger of God. If I bind, God doth not chain; if I bind not, the indissoluble chains await him. ‘For if we judged ourselves, we should not be judged’ (1 Cor. 11:31). Think not, then, that thus to act cometh of cruelty and inhumanity; nay, but of the highest gentleness and the most skillful leechcraft and of much tender care.¹⁰²

This passage from St. John Chrysostom is, I believe, the key to understanding and vindicating St. Nikodemos’ language, too. The Mystery of repentance, in all of its workings – as the Church’s pastoral mechanism par excellence –, presents many parallels to medical science, in terms of its language and methods. It is the means by which the Church effects cures, and for this reason it functions in a manner as practical as surgery. To be sure, this kind of language does not belong in a mission to those outside the Church, nor is it suitable for use with neophytes who have not entered into the Church’s spiritual life, since the results would be rather negative.¹⁰³ It is, however, the proper language for dealing with sinners who are conscious of the life of the Church and who sincerely seek to be readmitted into the body of the Church. In them, such language engenders joyful sorrow (charmolype). They feel sorrow and fear, for they are unworthy because of sin, but joy, on account of their salvation¹⁰⁴

The most important point, however, is that the Exomologetarion functions within the framework of the Church and orients the believer, not towards some individual justification, but towards readmittance into the life of the Church. Only through ascetical praxis, as an endeavor within the realm of this Mystery (and, consequently, one that is centered on the Church), can the believer become receptive to grace, and this grace is imparted by the Mystery of the Church. The Exomologetarion is not without an ecclesiological perspective, for it greets man in the narthex of the Church, in order to lead him to the Holy of Holies. Spiritual Fathers, according to St. Nikodemos, are those physicians and innkeepers whom the Lord established, in keeping with the Gospel parable, in the inn of the Church to care for the sick; that is, those sinners who are wounded by the noetic thieves, namely, the demons.¹⁰⁵ The Exomologetarion always presupposes the Church. She is the mother [of the believer]…who delivered the Faith to him.¹⁰⁶ Moreover, it frequently mentions the Saints, the angels, and especially the Theotokos, into whose fellowship the repentant sinner is reincorporated. The author does not neglect to remind us of the category of mourners, that is, the penitents of the early centuries of Christianity,¹⁰⁷ who attest to the Church’s abiding penitential practice.

Accordingly, the penitent is called to an awareness that he belongs to a society that is not worldly or secularized, but ecclesiastical. For this reason, in his interpretation of the Canons, St. Nikodemos often explains them in social terms. These explanations impress us even today by their progressiveness,¹⁰⁸ and they also liberate the penitent from any individualistic notion of himself. Thus, ascetical satisfaction becomes an ecclesiastical event and an act of communion.¹⁰⁹

ABBREVIATIONS

PART ONE

Instruction to the Spiritual Father

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness

(Gal. 6:1)

TO THE MOST REVEREND

SPIRITUAL FATHERS IN CHRIST

WITH FILIAL VENERATION

Inasmuch as the distinction of the Spiritual Father is great, so also is great labor required of him, so that from him may be produced beneficial results and fruit.

Indeed the Spiritual Father has received successively from the sacred and Spiritbearing Apostles the authority to bind and to loose the sins of men, according to the pronouncement of the Lord: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained (Jn. 20:23), which authority is only proper to God Himself: Who can forgive sins but God only? (Mk. 2:7). It is, however, also necessary for Spiritual Fathers to labor in order to learn which sins must be loosed and which must be bound, as the Chief Apostle Peter said to Clement: Bind what must be bound, and loose what must be loosed.¹ Having become mediators between God and men, they have reconciled, that is, brought men to friendship with God; but it is necessary for them to know exactly the manner and the science of this reconciliation, as blessed Paul said: God was in Christ… and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19). These are the physicians and those innkeepers which the Lord appointed to the inn of the Church, according to the parable of the Gospel (Lk. 10:25-37), in order to care for the sick, that is, those sinners who are wounded by the noetic thieves, the demons. But it is also necessary that they know which wounds need to be cauterized, which need to be incised, and which need to be wrapped in a cast, and upon which ones to pour the wine and severity, and upon which ones to apply the oil and gentleness.

It has truly been afforded to Spiritual Fathers to be judges, judging the Christian people of the Lord; but it has also been afforded to them to scrutinize matters with much inquiry, in order to find through these judgments the hidden truth and that which is right, so that they may not happen to perform unjust judgment on account of partiality toward someone, or because of ignorance or some other passion, and so that which divine Paul said may be fulfilled in them: But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man (1 Cor. 2:15).

To them it has been given to be like hunters, as the Prophet Jeremiah most appropriately calls them: And after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them… out of the holes of the rocks (Jer. 16:16); and to be like the priests of the Old Law who cleansed the lepers: Go shew yourselves unto the priests (Lk. 17:14). And it has been given to them to know many skills and to perform great labors, so that they may be able to hunt among the forests and the thickets the sins of the unfortunate sinners and to take great care, so as to be able to discern which leprosy, that is, which sin is mortal and which is pardonable, which is to some degree a sin and which not at all, which is superficial and which is deeply rooted.

In brief, Spiritual Fathers have been appointed shepherds and herdsmen over the rational sheep of Christ. However, it is also necessary for them to shed much sweat, ascending the mountains, descending into the valleys, running and searching here and there, in order to find the stray sheep, the sinner, which is ensnared by the devil, and finding it, placing it upon their shoulders in order to offer it saved