Life.
Chrysostom's life was neither calm nor easy. He was an ascetic
and a martyr. It was not in the desert that his feats were accomplished but in
the chaos of the world, in the pulpit of the preacher, and on the episcopal
throne. His martyrdom was bloodless. He was tormented not by external enemies
but by his brothers who proved false to him, and he ended his life in chains, in
exile, under interdiction, and persecuted by Christians for his faith in Christ
and the Gospel, which he preached as a revelation and the law of life.
Chrysostom was primarily an evangelist and a preacher of the
good news of the Gospel. He was also a teacher who had a lively interest in
contemporary issues, and the true significance of his teaching can be fully
understood only in its historical context. He condemned the Christians of the
fourth century who claimed to be living according to the precepts of the Gospel
and warned them that they had relaxed their efforts prematurely. This prophet of
universal love frequently spoke harshly and severely because it seemed to him
that he was preaching and bearing witness before men who were dead. For him the
injustice and the absence of love in the Christian world assumed catastrophic,
almost apocalyptic significance. "We have extinguished our fervor and the body
of Christ has died." The light yoke of love seemed an unbearable burden for the
indifferent world. This explains Chrysostom's ultimately bitter fate, for he was
driven out for the sake of the truth which he preached. "For this the world will
hate you."
Chrysostom was a native of Antioch, and he remained a typical
Antiochene in his spiritual temperament and in his religious outlook. The exact
year of his birth is unknown but it was probably sometime between 344 and 354.
Chrysostom came from a wealthy and prominent Christian family. Both by birth and
education he belonged to the intellectual Hellenistic circles of the society of
his aristocratic gentility. Chrysostom did not renounce his cultural heritage
even when he rejected the world and everything in it.
Chrysostom was a true Hellenist. He studied with the famous
Libanius and received a broad and brilliant education. He was not a thinker or a
philosopher, and in the classical sense he is best defined as an orator and a
rhetorician. The classical rhetorician was a teacher, moralist, and preacher,
and Chrysostom was just such a man. Chrysostom's Hellenism is most apparent in
his language and style. As an orator and stylist, he can be compared with
Demosthenes and even Xenophon and Plato, for the brilliance of the classical
Athenians is revived in his writing. Even his contemporaries recognized him as
an Atticist. It is incorrect to consider that his Hellenism is purely external
or formal because it has penetrated all aspects of his style. It is true that
Chrysostom was apparently never stirred by the philosophical problems of
Hellenism and he was never forced to reconcile the Hellenist in himself with his
Christianity. This, however, was characteristic of the intellectual outlook of
the Antiochenes and of the "historical" culture of Asia Minor, which was always
more "philological" than "philosophical."
Chrysostom always remained a Hellenist and this is especially
evident in his moralism. In a sense moralism was the natural truth of the
classical world. This explains and justifies the acceptance and transformation
of Stoicism by Christian ethics, in which natural truth is elevated to new
heights through Divine grace. In Chrysostom the transformed elements of Stoicism
are particularly apparent. He constantly tried to teach moral wisdom and
nobility, and moral judgments and evaluations are present everywhere in his
writing. However, he saw the full realization of natural truth only in the ideal
that is revealed in the Gospel.
None of this implies that Chrysostom was not a mystic.
"Moralism" does not exclude "mysticism." It is true, however, that his mysticism
had a moral significance. It is a mysticism of conscience, of goodness, of good
works and virtue. Ethical considerations are less clearly expressed in
Chrysostom. He considered beauty more as an ethical than an aesthetic
phenomenon, and he saw beauty primarily in active goodness. For him the Gospel
is most significant as a book about the beauty of virtue as revealed in the
image of the God-man, and this determined the course of his own life.
Chrysostom's moral character was formed very early in his youth. The example of
his mother was reinforced and strengthened by the lessons of his devout mentors,
including Meletius of Antioch, Diodore, and the ascetic Carteria.
Chrysostom was not satisfied by any secular vocation, and even
before he was able to withdraw from the world he began to practice ascetic
discipline in the home of his parents. Only after the death of his mother in 374
or 375 did it become possible for him to retire to a monastery not far from
Antioch and became a friend of Theodore of Mopsuestia. He spent two years there,
followed by two years in the desert. His novitiate was of short duration,
however, and he returned to the world in order to continue his austerities amid
the world. Chrysostom always considered asceticism more as a spiritual
orientation than as a specifically regulated form of daily life. And this state
could be achieved primarily through renunciation, through internal freedom and
independence from the external circumstances and conditions of fife in the
world. In this sense Chrysostom remained an ascetic throughout his life.
Chrysostom returned to the world to preach the necessity of
ascetic renunciation. It was not his intention to exhort men to make an external
withdrawal from the world by leaving their cities. "I frequently prayed,"
Chrysostom wrote in these years, that the need for monasteries would pass away,
and that I would be able to find even in cities such goodness and such order
that no one would ever again have to flee to the desert." Chrysostom wanted to
transform life in the cities and towns so that it would accord with the
principles of the Gospel and with the spirit of "the higher philosophy." To this
end he became a pastor and preacher.
Chrysostom was made deacon in 381 by Meletius of Antioch, and
he was ordained priest by his successor Flavian in 386. Chrysostom discusses his
new vocation in his famous six books On the Priesthood [De
sacerdotio] (which actually deal with episcopal duties). The exact dates of
these works are unknown but they were probably written before his ordination.
Chrysostom takes the ideas of Gregory the Theologian as the point of departure
for his own exposition, which has two main emphases. In the first place, he
describes the highest goal of the holy calling as the performance of the
sacraments. "Sacred service takes place on this earth but it also has a place
among the heavenly powers." This is because the priesthood has been established
by the Spirit of the Comforter Himself. How can it be that we remain on earth
when we see the Lord Whose body is offered to us, and when we become
incarnadined with His blood? The priest participates at the sacrificial table,
which stands in the heavens. He is given the heavenly power of the keys which
has not been received even by the angels.
In the second place, Chrysostom sees the priest as a teacher,
mentor, preacher, and pastor of souls. He devotes most of his attention to the
teaching responsibilities of the priesthood, and in this respect he places the
priest even higher than the monk. There is more love in pastoral work than in
monastic isolation, and the pastor's service to his neighbors is a service of
active love. "The whole universe would be upset if we were to think that only
monks need severity and discipline in their lives, while the rest of us can live
freely," he writes.
As a priest and pastor Chrysostom himself was first of all a
preacher. It is difficult to enumerate all of the themes with which he dealt.
From among the homilies delivered in Antioch particular mention should be made
of the Homilies on the Statues [Homiliae 21 de statuis] and also
of a long series of exegetical homilies on Matthew and John, on
the epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Titus, possibly
Ephesians and Romans, and probably also on Genesis. The
orations against the Jews and against the Anomoeans were written at this same
time. Chrysostom never concerned himself with abstract themes. His homilies are
lively and based on actual experience because they are intended for living
people, and the presence of the audience and the preacher himself can be sensed
in them. Chrysostom usually concludes his homilies with appeals to the wills of
his listeners and with practical exhortations. His primary goal is to teach love
but he also tries to encourage integrity and responsibility. Chrysostom spoke
with authority, but this authority was based on the convictions of his faith. He
emphasizes that personal transformation can be achieved through the strength of
the spirit and even more through the strength of love. It was love which kept
Chrysostom in the world with his flock.
In 398 Chrysostom was elevated to the see of Constantinople.
The clergy, the court, and the laity were all united in summoning him for his
recognized ability as a pastor and teacher. Chrysostom continued to preach in
Constantinople, and Sozomen remarks that it was his habit to take a place among
the congregation at the reader's ambo so that his listeners could sit closely
around him. His sermons were more like conversations than speeches. During this
period Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles, the
Psalms, and many of the epistles of Paul. A large number of his homilies
were recorded by stenographers as they were being delivered, and these records
preserve the liveliness of the spoken word. At this time Chrysostom saw his main
task in the reformation of the morals of lay society. It was his impression that
he was preaching to people for whom Christianity had become no more than a
fashionable garment. "From among so many thousands," he said, "it is impossible
to find more than one hundred who are truly saving their souls, and I am not
even sure that there are that many."
Chrysostom was troubled by the very fact that there was such a
large number of "Christians": "This is all the more fuel for the fire." He spoke
with bitterness about their prosperity: "In matters of piety, freedom from
oppression is the worst form of persecution. It is worse than any other
persecution. No one understands or senses this danger because safety gives birth
to carelessness. It weakens the soul and lulls it to sleep, and the devil
destroys sleeping men." The preacher's voice became harsh and severe because
around himself he saw only chaff fit for the fire. Chrysostom was deeply
concerned with the immorality of his society. He was troubled not only by
debauchery, but even more by the tacit lowering of standards and ideals which he
saw in the laity and in the clergy. Chrysostom fought with both words of
denunciation and acts of love. "No one would remain a pagan if we were true
Christians," he said. He spent a great deal of time in charitable work and
organized hospitals and refuges for the homeless. He demanded practical activity
from everyone and this caused dissatisfaction and opposition not only in
Constantinople but in other dioceses as well.
The hostility against Chrysostom manifested itself on several
occasions, and his altercation with the empress Eudoxia was only the final
pretext for the ultimate outburst. Chrysostom had enemies everywhere, especially
among the clergy and in particular among the wandering monks. He also had
opponents in the wealthy society of the court. The shameful history of
Chrysostom's deposition and condemnation at the "Synod of the Oak" is too
complicated to be recounted here. Traitors were found even among the bishops,
who were led by Theophilus of Alexandria, and others who were actively hostile
included Acacius of Beroea, Severian of Gabala, and Antiochus of Ptolemais, all
of whom at some time had been insulted by Chrysostom. The accusations against
Chrysostom were many, and he was also charged with Origenism. He was deposed and
his sentence was confirmed by the emperor. His exile was of short duration and
at his return he was greeted by popular rejoicing. However, the hostility
against him had not died down. The very fact that he had returned without
obtaining a revocation of the synod's decree was used against him because,
according to the fourth canon of the Antiochene council, this made him liable to
be deprived of his rights, even if his sentence was unjust. Chrysostom
recognized neither the legitimacy of the synod which condemned him (and in this
he was not alone) nor the legitimacy of the Antiochene canon, and he demanded
the convocation of a new council so that he could exonerate himself. The bishops
condemned him for a second time. He carried on with the duties of his office but
the unrest continued to grow. In June of 404 he was again exiled and sent first
to Cucusus in Lower Armenia and then to Pityus, a wild area on the eastern end
of the Black Sea. Chrysostom did not survive the hardships of his journey and
died while traveling on September 14, 407.
The injustice of Chrysostom's condemnation soon became evident,
and in 417 Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, readmitted his name to the Church
diptychs, claiming that this was the will of the people. Cyril of Alexandria
protested violently: "If you include John among the bishops, why not include
Judas among the apostles? And if there is a place for Judas, then where is
Matthew?" By 419, however, Chrysostom was rehabilitated even in Alexandria. In
438 his remains were brought to Constantinople and interred in the Church of the
Apostles. The sentence of the "Synod of the Oak" was revoked by the general
testimony of the Church.
Thanks to and source:
No comments:
Post a Comment