In John of Ephesus' Lives of Eastern Saints ch 12*, we learn of two interesting sixth-century ascetic sisters from amongst the Syrian Mesopotamian Monophysites recounted by John.
Mary, the elder of the two, lived the celibate life in Thella (Constantina). She was overcome by the desire to see the Holy City of Jerusalem and so she went on pilgrimage there. While in Jerusalem at the Church of the Resurrection (or Anastasis), she was overcome. She wanted to do nothing but stand there.
And while she stood there, Mary was enraptured and had an ecstatic experience. She was drawn into the experience of the love of the great God of grace who rules all. Inevitably, some of the people who helped take care of this church thought her mad and tried shooing her out.
So Mary spent time in the street. And then would move back into the Church of the Resurrection.
Eventually, she was persuaded by some of the following that had developed around her that maybe should go home. So she went back to Armenia IV and lived as an ascetic in Thella, returning to Jerusalem every once in a while to pray to the God who had so enraptured her soul.
Of note: Mary gathered a following, and they were edified by her spiritual experiences. True mysticism always benefits the community.
Mary's sister was Euphemia. Euphemia, unlike Mary, married and had a daughter. However, when her husband died, she was overcome by the desire to live a holy life. So she and her daughter, Mary like her aunt, learned the psalms and prayed the hours. They worked from the home, carding wool for the wealthy.
This work made them a denarius a day. Half of the denarius provided for their daily needs. The other half provided for the daily needs of anyone Euphemia could find.
In the West, we often make a distinction between the "active" life and the "contemplative" life. Despite Met. Kallistos Ware's attempts to do away with these distinctions (cf. The Orthodox Way), they are often played out in reality, as in the case of these two Syrian sisters.
Both of these lifestyles are appropriate choices for the person totally surrendered to Christ. The latter, Euphemia, fits better with our conception of a good Christian. Indeed, I cannot help but say that her approach fits better with what we find in the Gospels.
Nonetheless, I think we have room — need, even? — for mystic visionaries of the contemplative life such as Mary. They are the ones who ground us in Christ. Sometimes feeding the poor becomes feeding the poor — not feeding Christ. Sometimes seeking righteousness becomes political lobbying — not seeking Christ. The contemplatives see Christ and live for him a radical way, often in bizarre, radical ways (cf. our friend Daniel the Stylite).
If we of the "active life" gather around the contemplatives, our own mission is given fuel, and it is easier to see Christ in the faces of the poor surrounding us.
Let us be encouraged by Euphemia to do good for poor, and by Mary that Christ is calling out to draw us into his warm, divine embrace.
This Week's Saints Brought to You by Thomas Merton, Kallistos Ware, and the Chalcedonian Schism.
This past Tuesday, the Classic Christian Small Group looked at two documents from the Council of Chalcedon in 451. These were the Definitio Fidei, or Symbolum of Chalcedon and Leo's Tome to Flavian.
We didn't have much to discuss. I gave a brief run-through of the history from Nestorius to 451 with a note about the subsequent splintering of Christendom.* Then we read the Definitio. A few comments were made. As I recall, the few words spoken were words of assent. "Yes, this is true." Following this we read the Tome. Our pauses were most to clarify what exactly Pope St. Leo was saying. There was not a lot to say.
What do you say when you see a basic statement of what has been established orthodoxy for 1500 years? I mean, this is the West. We were Anglican(ish) and Christian Reformed people discussing this. The argument that caused Chalcedon wasn't even our argument — it was an issue of Greek grammar and philosophy. So, while we see the necessity for two natures Christology, to have it laid out for us, to have the Scriptures that support it explained so fully, to see the fact that, yes, Jesus has two natures, divine and human.
Even the controversial bits, "to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably," aren't even controversial for us. We would need an Oriental Orthodox person present to really get that theological dispute rolling. Instead, we all just commented on bits of the documents we liked and moved along.
Yet it is important to read these documents. I find it affirming to read these statements of the faith of the Fathers, to see an articulation of what we today take for granted. I am thankful to Pope St. Leo the Great for his contribution to the statement of orthodoxy. I am pleased to have my faith as it is today, to put my full trust in the Man-God, in the one who was fully God and fully man, who alone could wash away my sin and conquer death.
The Fathers are, then, important.
*The splintering resulted in the Oriental Orthodox — Egypt, Armenia, the Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopia (although they may have been evangelised by Egypt at a later date) and certain Indian churches — separating themselves from the rest of Christendom ("the rest" splintering itself into Roman Catholic West and Eastern Orthodox East in 1054).