Monasticism and the Papacy: Ecclesial Unity at Mount Athos

God's Straight Lines in Crooked Paths

Saint Peter was chosen by Christ to oversee His flock. Now we know how the faithful in the Church live their lives of faith in different forms: either by sanctifying the present life or by already showing a prefiguration of the future life; by practicing the love of God in withdrawal from the world or by sanctifying the world. The former are the pastors and the laity. The latter are the religious and especially the monks.

Monastic life has very ancient Eastern origins. It spread to Europe during the early centuries of Christianity and became integral to Christian practice, in the form of practicing the evangelical counsels recommended by Christ for those who feel and are capable of fulfilling them.

Christianity, however, corrected Eastern spiritualism, which does not know the Christian possibility of beginning to realize in this life a humanism that, free from evil, envisions union with God based on abstinence from earthly goods dictated by the inability to order them to God. Certainly, Christ also says, "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." But in the end, God created the eye to see, and if it can be used without danger to one's soul, it can and must be used.

Monastic life on Mount Athos began around the fourth century and since then has only grown and strengthened. It was born under the sign of a monasticism not entirely purified from the rigorism and dualism of the Eastern spirituality, present in Europe in Platonic spirituality.

The Schism of 1054, which separated the Eastern Churches from communion with the Roman Pontiff, as was to be expected, did not correct this spirituality that had taken an emblematic form in the monasteries of Mount Athos. In this way, the schismatic Eastern monasticism, which called itself "Orthodox" in polemic with the Pope deemed heretical, diminished communion with the universal Church, of which the Pope is Pastor.

The Schism of 1054 was the tragic outcome of an antagonistic attitude of the Patriarchate of Constantinople towards the Roman Church, motivated by the fact that the Patriarchate, being located near the Byzantine Court, believed for this political reason that it had acquired primacy over the Roman Church, which was located where the Western Roman Empire had collapsed in the fifth century. But this idea of Constantinople was entirely foreign to Christ's real intentions in founding the Papacy. Christ never said that Peter's See should be in an imperial city.

This misunderstanding of Christ's will is at the origin of Constantinople's rebellion against Rome, and even now the Patriarchate of Moscow, in line with this caesaropapist tradition, shows itself to be subordinate to the current political government of Russia [1].

However, what happened with the churches that followed the Constantinopolitan schism is not what unfortunately happened with the Protestant communities, which interrupted apostolic succession in the appointment of pastors. As is well known, the Eastern Churches have upheld the episcopate, thus preserving communion with the Pope in this respect.

What has been lost after a thousand years of fidelity and still lack after another thousand years is obedience to the pastoral and canonical directives of the Supreme Pontiff, who is not only the "Pope of Rome" but the Pope and Pastor of the universal Church, and therefore also of Constantinople and the Churches linked to it.

The intention of the Eastern Churches to preserve orthodoxy is commendable. But they have forgotten that orthodoxy is impossible without or against the Pope [2]. True orthodoxy necessitates universality, just as true Catholicity requires the Pope. And the Church, to be fully the Church as Christ wanted it, must be universal.

And how can it be universal if not all Christians obey the one whom Christ has established as His Vicar on earth? And how can those who do not obey this Shepherd consider themselves members of the universal Church? Or perhaps the Church is simply, as they believe, a collection of Churches? Fine, a collection of churches; but who by Christ's command has the task here on earth of keeping them united if not Peter? To whom did Christ say, "Feed my lambs"?

Does the fact that today in Kyiv there are three Orthodox patriarchs, two for Bartholomew against Cyril and one for Cyril against Bartholomew, mean nothing to them? Do they not have the vague suspicion that without the Pope, they cannot achieve that collegiality, that sobornost, which is their pride in front of us Catholics, slaves of the Pope? How is it that their bishops are so quick to excommunicate each other? Is this a sign of collegiality? When does this ever happen among Catholic bishops?

This regrettable lack of communion among our Eastern brothers leads them, consequently, to a way of living the episcopate that, no matter how much it may emphasize collegiality, listening to the Holy Spirit, and subjection to Christ, Head of the Church, this collegiality, devoid as it is of its principle of visible unity willed by Christ, which is the Pope, is in reality a pure utopia, unlike the true one, which has always been realized in the councils of the Catholic Church from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican II.

Why do our Eastern brothers not frankly recognize that their so-called "autocephaly" often ends up being a convenient pretext to give space to individualism and reject the effort and humility of ecclesial discipline?

With the advent of the Second Vatican Council, as is widely acknowledged, by God's grace, the long-awaited ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox began, which has borne many fruits. In 1972, Saint Paul VI and the Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras lifted the excommunications they had mutually imposed at the time of the schism. It was already known that if the excommunication imposed by the Pope at that time was valid, the one imposed by the Patriarch of Constantinople had no canonical basis.

Certainly, it was a consoling historical event, but it has not yet led to actual full communion of the Orthodox Churches with the Pope. To this day, there remains the rejection of the Filioque, which was the genesis of the schism. Turning back to the topic of the monasteries of Athos, what is nonetheless admirable in them is their fidelity to the monastic ideal of Saint Basil.

However, despite its nobility, it reflects, like all the thought of the Greek Fathers, Platonic dualism and lacks the humanistic balance and moderation of that of Saint Benedict, more in line with biblical anthropology. This ideal skillfully harmonized Roman juridical wisdom and diligence under the authority of the Pope.

Thus, Christian monasticism reaches its perfect rule with Saint Benedict, thanks to whom the monastery, though withdrawn from the world, is not isolated or separated from it: it is indeed defended from its snares and protected from its seductions, temptations, and dangers, but it does not ignore the ends, values, needs, necessities, problems, illusions, aspirations, chances, anxieties, and sufferings of this world.

Its transience, corruptibility, changeability, precariousness, and vanity are certainly rejected, unmasked, and refused by both the Benedictine monk and the Athonite one. However, the former displayed a different approach, in contrast to the latter, recognizing beyond these things the presence of God in His living creature in this world, which God wants to save and have with Him.

From this stems the attentive gaze of the Benedictine monk outside the monastery's enclosure, towards the external world, which is lacking in the Athonite monk, fearful that a glance towards the world might distract him from God. But thus it happened that while Benedictine monasteries, spreading throughout Catholic Europe from the Middle Ages to the present day, have been factors of Christianization and civilization in the territory, the monasteries of Athos, isolated from the world, have indeed and still are powerful attractions for souls desiring to be alone with God. However, it should be frankly noted that the Athonite concept of monastic solitude is not entirely correct.

Exploring the Essence of Monastic Solitude

Saint Thomas Aquinas dedicates a splendid and dense article in the Summa Theologica (II-II. q.188, a.8) to the ideal of eremitic life. As a Dominican, a religious of active life, he considers eremitic and hesychastic monasticism the most sublime and evangelical form of Christian life.

Thomas cites Aristotle, Cassian, Saint Jerome, and Saint Augustine as authorities, thus Western authors. Yet, the loftiness of their thought competes very well with the mysticism of the Eastern Fathers. There are many themes that Aquinas addresses in the brief space of an article, which would deserve a lengthy commentary. Here I limit myself to stating the essential.

Saint Thomas seems to contradict himself two articles earlier (q.188, a.6), where, asking whether the contemplative life is superior to the active one, he gives primacy to the latter for the following reason: "as it is better to illuminate than merely to shine, so it is better to pass on to others what has been contemplated (contemplata aliis tradere) than merely to contemplate."

But it should be noted that here Thomas is comparing simple acts and not actual states of life. Who is it that knows only and does not communicate to others what he has learned? Even the most austere hermit will have sometimes to speak with someone.

Monastic solitude — an intuition already present in Tibetan monasticism — does not mean isolation and incommunicability, because this either signifies antisocial behavior or is that psychological disorder known as autism. On the contrary, monastic solitude is the ability to manage on one's own, not needing many things, it is a sign of self-sufficiency, thus of sobriety simplicity of life, and communion with the Whole.

The monk in his cell is in communion with others and with the Church in a deeper, more spiritual way than the merchant, the lawyer, the politician, or the Bishop who are always among the people, but who may do so to gain fame and success.

Healthy solitude, desired by God, consists of standing with one's conscience before Him after a busy workday in service to others. It is a pause intended as a foretaste of the beatific vision, a spiritual recharge as a stimulus and reason for renewed and better contact with the world.

A contact with God that excludes or undervalues contact with others (men or women), due to excessive repugnance for the world or excessive fear of being deceived or seduced, is a sign of an inability to see the presence of the Creator in the creature, risking the loss of contact with the Creator Himself and closing ourselves off in our beautiful ideas mistaken for reality.

We need clarity when discussing the profound value of solitude. Solitude has high moral value not as a single person who simply stays alone without contact with others.

Solitude is not the solipsism of Descartes or Fichte: I alone exist. My ego dictates everything. I am self-sufficient; others are at my service. This is not holiness; as Aristotle, cited by St. Thomas [3], already intuited, this is not holiness but bestiality. It is a petty mental infantilism.

The monk’s ascetic, meritorious, holy, and fruitful solitude is solitude with God in spiritual communion with the Church. Thus, the Bible teaches us that God did not want solitude in His creatures. Only God can be blissfully alone because He is God and needs no one. He created the world out of pure freedom, but He could have lived alone without creating the world.

God did not want to create a single, unique personal creature devoted only to Him, although He could have done so if He had wished. Instead, He created man and woman, forming the family, which is famously the paradigm of sociality. But this relationship is destined to remain in the future resurrection, where there will be no more reproduction of the species.

The foundational purpose for God's creation of the human couple, as explained by Saint John Paul II, is His will that man and woman complete each other in existence; that is, one gives meaning to the existence of the other. This is why the Song of Songs says that love is as strong as death: because just as death claims life, so love bestows life and dispels death. As sublime love inspires the most heroic acts, so passionate love can perpetrate the most heinous crimes.

The monks of Mount Athos certainly do well not to want to belong to the world, but they forget that Christ did not ask the Father to take us out of the world but to protect us from the evil one. They certainly fight against the devil, but instead of freeing the world from the devil, they flee the world along with the devil.

The tragedy of the schism has meant that the monks of Athos, and Eastern monasticism in general, from which monasticism in the West also originated, refused to approve and follow the monastic reform promoted by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux in the 11th-12th centuries, in communion with the Roman Pontiff. This reform gave a more contemplative imprint to Benedictine monasticism and would have shown even more clearly the indissoluble link between true and integral Christian monasticism and submission to the Roman See.

In this way, for us Catholics, Byzantine and Athonite monasticism lost the prestige it certainly boasted even among us Latins until the break with Rome. Nevertheless, monasticism has certainly preserved the essential values of Christianity and monasticism itself, as recognized by the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council. But such monasticism can no longer be an example for us Catholics of fidelity to the Successor of Peter and Universal Shepherd of the Church.

From Dualistic to Humanistic Monasticism

A further factor in the Catholic Church's correction of Platonic monasticism in the 13th century was the mystical theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas [4], who, despite belonging to an active religious order like the Dominicans, gave an even firmer biblical foundation to the monastic ideal by linking it not to Platonic ethics but to Aristotelian ethics. This was open, thanks to its hylomorphic theoretical basis, to the dogma of the resurrection of the body, which is rejected by dualistic Platonic spiritualism.

That said, I must express my great admiration for the millennial tradition of Mount Athos, which, due to its solidity, is a sign of divine protection and an extraordinary testimony of the Eternal, the Immutable, and the Absolute.

Athos is, in fact, a clear ridicule of those Christologies circulating today that, under the pretext of the Incarnation, make history an idol and wish for a God trapped in the world.

The Holy Mountain remains an example of holiness and fidelity to the word of Christ that does not pass, an eminent disciple of Christ and the Greek Holy Fathers, a rich repository and documentary of Christian art, history, and culture, a school of communal life, mercy, and fraternal charity, as well as of mystical theology, spiritual freedom, hope, prayer, contemplation, and ascetic practices, a very current example of integral ecology, a haven for souls seeking God, a beacon of Taboric light, and a teacher of spirituality for the entire Church.

Great masters of Athonite spirituality are Dionysius the Areopagite [5] and Gregory Palamas [6], both theorists of hesychia, the mystical silence. However, we observe that mystical silence prepares the word and is caused by the word without leaving the word, the concept, the logos, without the pretense of going beyond, because, as Saint John teaches, there is no going beyond Christ the Logos.

Nor should we stop short, as Palamas believes, with his theory of "divine energies." Saint John indeed says, "We shall see Him as He is," and Saint Paul: "face to face." The Father does not remain invisible behind the Logos (Palamas), and as Dionysius teaches, we cannot see the Father without the Logos; yet, through the Logos, we behold the Father in the Logos because we shall see the Holy Trinity. This is the true beatific vision, taught by Saint Thomas and dogmatically recognized by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 (Denz.1000) [7].

Palamas rejects the direct and immediate vision of the Divine Essence, which the Pope admits, because, it seems, Palamas confounds sight with grace: viewing the latter as mere participation in the divine essence, he contends that vision also has as its object a participation in the Divine Essence, which would be the "divine energy."

For this reason, I titled my treatise on mystical theology [8] not so much the word of silence, la voix du silence as André Malraux called the message of works of painting, but the silence of the word, to indicate the speaking silence produced by the word. This is the true silence that speaks. Otherwise, there is nothing divine, but the absolute void and nothingness of nonsense.

The defect of Athos is that of the static and immobile traditionalism characteristic of those schisms that involve preserving the point to which the Church had arrived at the time of the schism, but along with rejecting the step forward that the Church proposes to bring us closer to the Kingdom of God. This step forward appears to the schismatics as infidelity to tradition and a disastrous novelty.

A Sublime Mariology Without Femininity

Can one imagine the Madonna without the Pope or against the Pope? The Mother of God without the Vicar of her Son? Yet – what a heartbreaking fact! – this happens precisely in Orthodoxy! We Latins, since the dawn of Christianity, have received from the East the worship and the first images of Mary. Countless Marian icons have come to us from Greece throughout the centuries, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, and Russia.

In my Ravenna, so closely linked to Byzantine art, I used to reverence an exquisite marble sculpture bas-relief of the Madonna since I was a boy, the so-called "Greek Madonna" jealously guarded in a grandiose Ravenna sanctuary. How can I not remember the icon of the Bolognese Madonna of San Luca, in the hymn to which her origin from the "mystical East" is sung?

How then was it possible that the very Eastern Church that taught us Europeans a tender devotion to the heavenly Mother of all Christians, beginning with the See of Peter – consider the ancient Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome – has since rebelled against the Pope for 1,000 years while maintaining an intense devotion to the Madonna? How can we not entrust to her the task of leading her Orthodox children to full communion with the Successor of Peter, the Universal Shepherd of the Church?

How is it that we Latins, taught by the Greeks about the devotion to Mary, now for many centuries exhort our Greek, Cypriot, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Georgian, Romanian, and Russian brothers to acquire a deeper knowledge of the Mother of God from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of 1854, from that of the Assumption of 1950, and from the splendid chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which presents Mary as the model and type of the Church, the model and ideal of woman?

Does it not occur to the monks of Athos that their refusal to meet women offends the sensibility of the one who is the model and ideal of woman? Certainly, there is also enclosure in our monasteries. But for what form of fear of women should a monk be prohibited from meeting women, including members of his own family and relatives?

Armando Santarelli, in his beautiful book on Mount Athos, La montagna di Dio [9] (The Mountain of God), highlights the balanced position of the International Community regarding Mount Athos: on one hand, it has been declared by UNESCO as a "World Heritage Site," but on the other, the EU has urged the monks to accept conversations with women. No one forbids them from practicing religious chastity. However, it is not learned at the school of Origen but of Saint Thomas, updated by the teachings of Saint John Paul II.

Mount Athos: A Sign of Hope for Peace in Europe

Among the faithful of the Church, the monk is the one who has the broadest vision, akin to the Pope's vision of the Church. Like Saint Paul and the Pope, the monk is free from all to be all things to all people, in the hope of saving at least some (cf. 1 Cor 9:22). The monk is the brother of all because he is not particularly the brother of anyone. Being a servant of God, he is not a slave to anyone but a servant to all.

The monk has no personal interests to defend; his only desire is the good of the Church and to serve it in the best way possible. He is therefore like the Pope, above all parties, and he sees in conflicts the wrongs and reasons of both sides with impartiality, to find points of agreement and correct the defects of both sides, dispel misunderstandings and misconceptions, and thus achieve reconciliation and harmony in peace and justice. The monk is, therefore, the man, the Christian par excellence of communion.

And communion with whom, among the brothers, represents Christ first and foremost, if not the Pope? So, what sense does Christian monasticism have that is not in ecclesial communion and communion with the Pope? What sense does a schismatic, divisive, sectarian monasticism have, rigid and closed in on itself, isolated from communion with the universal Church?

How can our Orthodox brothers be so devoted to the Holy Spirit without understanding, as they did until 1054, that the Spirit acts eminently in the Bishop of Rome to procure and guarantee unity, and communion in the diversity of the entire flock of Christ entrusted to him by the Good Shepherd?

Was Saint Basil, the great theologian of the Holy Spirit and creator of Christian monasticism, to whom our Orthodox brothers rightfully refer, not an example of fidelity and communion with the Pope? Or did the Popes cease to be Popes in 1054? Did not Christ promise Peter not to abandon him until the end of time? Does the Primate among the Bishops, who has the task of guiding the Church, have to reside in the politically most important city?

What mattered if in 1054 the political importance of Rome was inferior to that of Constantinople? And what mattered if in 1589 the political significance of Moscow was greater than that of Constantinople now in the hands of the Turks? Where is it ever said in Tradition that the Bishop of Rome was to be replaced by that of Constantinople, and this in turn by the Bishop of Moscow? Where in Tradition is it said that there is not one Rome but three?

The monk, from monos which means alone, or one, is, like the Pope, the man of unity and communion, the supporter, promoter, and defender of unity. Similar to the Pope, he champions ecumenism and dialogue for reconciliation. The monk is the one who reminds us that everything comes from the One and returns to the One, that God is the All and the One in all, and all are one in Him.

To whom much is given, much is expected to be given. The high esteem we must have for the Holy Mountain with its 1700 years of history urges us to strongly encourage this wonderful family of monasteries to employ the fabulous treasures of spirituality and Christian wisdom accumulated throughout this centuries-old history with such fidelity to the tradition of the Greek Holy Fathers, to contribute to putting an end to the terrible war underway between Russia and Ukraine, two sister nations, or if we wish, from a Christian point of view, respectively daughter and mother, since the Church of Moscow was born from that of Kyiv in the 13th century. Unfortunately, Moscow was born in an atmosphere of schism from Rome.

The family of Athonite monasteries is canonically dependent on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to which all the Churches that followed the schism of this Patriarchate in past centuries belong. However, the Russian Orthodox Church is represented there by the monastery of St. Panteleimon.

Unfortunately, even in the peace of Athos, the sinister echoes of the war in Ukraine have arrived, so the Vatopedi monastery stands out among the others in supporting the Patriarchate of Constantinople, linked to the United States, the EU, the Uniats led by Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of Kyiv, as well as Zelensky's Ukraine, while the monasteries of Panteleimon and Esfigmenu side with the Russians and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. In Kyiv, moreover, there are three Orthodox Patriarchs in conflict with each other. The Emeritus Patriarch Onufry supports Cyril and opposes Bartholomew. The current Patriarch Filaret, along with Patriarch Epifanio, supports Bartholomew against Cyril.

In essence, Ukrainian Orthodox are divided between obedience to Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and Bartholomew, Patriarch of Constantinople, supported by Americans and the European Union. The Pope, as is widely acknowledged, rightly opposes the Russian invasion, although he has spoken of fratricidal war. It would be desirable for him to succeed in making peace efforts using Shevchuk.

These are the circumstances in which true ecumenical dialogue is tested. The Council initiated ecumenical activities in anticipation of events like these. A quiet ecumenical dialogue where everyone remains with their initial ideas is convenient but produces nothing. True ecumenical dialogue is what stops massacres and bombings by touching consciences before God.

Onufry's faithful favor the Russian invasion, which they consider a liberation of Russians residing in Ukraine; Filaret and Epifanio's followers, on the other hand, are opposed because they see the Russian invasion as an act of imperialism. Who is right?

Cyril has lost many followers in Ukraine for supporting the Russian invasion, which he has even called a "holy war." The Catholic Archbishop (Uniates) of Kyiv, Sviatoslav Shevchuk, condemns the Russian invasion. But what is he doing for peace?

There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is present and active on Mount Athos, even though the devil contests it inch by inch. Moreover, the monks, disciples of the Desert Fathers, know this well. They must not enjoy their immense riches alone; they must open their immense granaries to distribute them to the hungry crowds. The gods, as Heidegger says, have fled. Well, they can and must make them return. What utility does spirituality serve if it fails to persuade consciences to lay down their arms?

Observing this intricate conflict, which seems to go down to the roots of the spirit of the essence of Europe, where we find deep-rooted contradictions and internal divisions in Ukraine, a reflection of a clash between East and West, there is a strong suspicion that the United States and Russia, beyond official declarations, want to extend their hegemony to Ukraine (Bold mine, Ed.) rather than deal together with the good and internal harmony of this unfortunate nation, which has never known national unity or religious unity.

The Western presence in Ukraine, historically linked to Russia for being the mother of its Christianity, smells of unnatural interference. The cruelty and destructiveness of the Russian invasion, which have the bitter taste of a daughter tormenting her mother, are shocking and scandalous.

The moment of reckoning has dawned for the Eastern Churches estranged from Rome. Either we address the fundamental issues or it is the end for everyone (Bold mine, Ed.). If the papacy is a choreographic institution or affects us all closely, it is time to decide once and for all.

If our Orthodox brothers reflect, they should realize that the knots are coming down to the comb. What has been the arrogance of the second and third Rome worth? What advantages has separating from the one and eternal Rome given? What has adding two more served, when the first was perfectly fine? Does Christ, perchance, lack the ability to organize his community?

True, harmony and peace do not reign in our home either. Contrarily. The uniform thought imposed by the modernists is a continuous source of conflict because on the one hand, the good faithful, who compare their outbursts with Scripture, Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium, realize they are being deceived and do not want to risk their souls for the blasphemies or daily obscenities of a power group that wants to dominate in the Church and restrains the Pope [10]..On the other hand, the number of frustrated or impassioned individuals increases: passatists, catastrophists, sedevacantists, Lefebvrists, Cioncists, Viganò-ists, Minutellists. (These groups respectively follow Mons. Lefebvre, a traditionalist Catholic Bishop; Andrea Cionci, an Italian journalist and commentator; Mons. Viganò, a former and excommunicated Vatican official; and Alessandro Minutella, a former Italian priest and controversial figure. Added by translator for context.) They advocate for the cancellation of the Council and all subsequent pontifical teachings.

Yet, let us seriously ask ourselves: among all the world authorities, which one, like Pope Francis, despite all his blunders, questionable statements, apparent heresies, and apparent support for Americans against Russia, attracts more attention, respect, hope, and harmony from everyone, while calming everyone's anxieties, this tireless eighty-year-old man, in pain and a wheelchair, with a good-natured laugh, a quick joke, and a stern look when what is essential is at stake? Hence, brothers, why delay? Join us! There's ample room for all!

Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP

Fontanellato, May 31, 2024

sources:

1) https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/il-monachesimo-e-il-papa-la-comunione.html

2) https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/il-monachesimo-e-il-papa-la-comunione_27.html

Acknowledgments:

[1] See Giovanni Codevilla, Da Lenin a Putin. Da Perseguitata a connivente. Politica e e religion (From Lenin to Putin. From Persecuted to Conniving. Politics and Religion), Edizioni JacaBook, Milan 2024.

[2] This is the same vice among us Catholics as the Lefebvrists.

[3] Summa Theologica, II-II, q.188, a.8.

[4] See Jean-Pierre Torrell, Tommaso d’Aquino maestro spirituale, Città Nuova, Roma 1998.

[5] See Dionysius: Mistica teologia e Epistole (Mystical Theology and Epistles) I-V, ESC-ESD, Bologna 2011.

[6] See Palamas, Luce del Tabor. Difesa dei santi esicasti (Light of the Tabor. Defense of the Holy Hesychasts), Edizioni ESD-ESC, Bologna 2022.

[7] See Andrea Vaccaro, Il dogma del paradiso (The Dogma of Paradise), Pontificia Università Lateranense, Roma 2005.

[8] Il silenzio della parola. Le mistiche a confronto (The Silence of the Word. Mystics in Comparison), Edizioni ESD, Bologna 2002. Regarding the Eastern conception, see V. Lossky, La teologia mistica della Chiesa d’Oriente (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church), Edizioni EDB, Bologna 2013.

[9] Rubbettino Editore 2009.

[10] The work of mercy from the Catechism of St. Pius X is highly relevant today: "patiently enduring annoying people."