Sermons on the Spiritual Life

by Philaret of Moscow, Nicholas Kotar (Translator)

St. Philaret of Moscow is the Russian Chrysostom. His mouth overflowed from a heart enlarged and illumined by the Holy Spirit, and his teaching has been a fountain of life to the Christian generations that have succeeded the great bishop. Here, for the first time in an English-language translation, we have a thematic collection of his sermons dedicated to living the Christian life. The Master Pedagogue covers numerous foundational spiritual realities including being born again, building a life upon the foundation of the fear of God, the centrality of gratitude, the cultivation of zeal, the purification of the heart, the nourishing of poverty of spirit, as well as more targeted subjects such as childbearing, work, preparations for prayer, and how to consecrate Sunday to God. These pages contain a feast of faith and soul guidance that, if followed, will bring forth abundant spiritual treasure.

Genres: Christianity, Theology, Religion

148 pages, Paperback

Published April 19, 2020

About the author

Saint Philaret of Moscow, Metropolitan Philaret. His secular name was Vasily Mikhaylovich Drozdov or Василий Михайлович Дроздов.

Reviews

[Nicholas Kotar]

Just finished translating volume 4 of this series.

[Michael Martinez · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is so much I can write about in this collection by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow; pretty much all of it is very spiritually edifying. I will only explain the things in this book which come to mind, but really there is so much and I went through many of these multiple times just to ingrain the words into my mind. This is not going to be in order whatsoever, I am just going to write a stream of consciousness. Although the Metropolitan does not necessarily condemn birthdays, he does say that those who do as they believe we ought to exalt our baptism date much more, have a point; on our birthdays we are born to inequity, but at our baptism we are born to right-living, and certainly this is better as an incorrupt birth is better than a corrupt birth. I like his attack on esotericism, as he rightfully says we ought to prefer clarity to mystery—I think too many may have too much love for the esoteric and forget this fact. What he says about work is really good; he says that God gave Adam work even in a pre-fallen world as work is good in itself, and it is the lack of work that entails the sin of sloth, but this work was easy until the Fall made it hard. What he says about childbearing is blatantly racialist which I love—at least you can take it to this logical conclusion. For example he points out what I have thought about for a long time which is that genetics are not merely material, but likewise spiritual; in the same manner that children can inherit the physical diseases of their parents, they can also inherit their spiritual diseases; as parents are responsible for the physical perfections and imperfections of their children by their genetics, this is likewise true about spiritual dispositions and inclinations. The example he uses for this is Abraham begetting the evil Ishmael from his adultery with Hagar, but begets the better Issac with his actual wife Sarah; what this means is that sinful parents make sinful kids, both by inheritance and by their raising up of them, but holy parents make holy children in like manner. He likewise points out in this part that in virtue of the Fall, Adam could no longer pass on the full image and likeness of God as he himself no longer had it, and you cannot give what you do not have; Adam passes on to his children his image and likeness, and they pass on their image and likeness to their children—what I can logically deduce here is that some of us have more of the image and likeness of God than others in virtue of our genetic inheritance, and the application to race here ought to be very clear. I love the distinction between joy and peace; joy is like a state of drunkenness that leaves behind a heavy loss, it is bittersweet, but peace is that state of a more sober soul and more constant—those who constantly seek merriments can never have peace as they are just chasing highs to make up for their lack of peace. I would apply this in a critique of charismatic worship, as it does not bring the peace that contemplative prayer does, but only brings joy in the same way getting drunk does. He talks about how being zealous is in fact not bad, but following in the example of the Saints and doing what God wants. He talks about the Eastern Orthodox practice of lighting candles in church, and points out that God has no material need for this, but what matters is that this is a material signal of an ardent internal zeal, and this is what really matters. He points out that what God commands only appears burdensome to the cold-hearted, but that to those who love that for which they labor, like Jacob loved Rachel (so much so that the years passing by was irrelevant to him), that the yoke of Christ is in fact very easy—this takes zeal, a good thing. He talks about the good of being poor in spirit, but this should not be misunderstood as having little spiritual riches, but as having a spiritual attitude of poverty, in that we ought to be one arrogant about whatever spiritual riches we have, but in fact like the poor man, have our hands out in poverty to humbly receive what God has to offer—never boasting about what spiritual riches we have already been given. His distinction between a slavish fear of God and a filial fear of God is very well-put; obeying God out of fear of Hell is an inferior fear to that of filial fear, the kind of fear a son has to his father in that he fears disappointing his father who he loves. He talks about how works of mercy ought to be for the love of mercy itself, much like work ought to be out of love for work itself, rather than for ambition or something else. The whole part on gratitude to God is really good, though perhaps trite to even say, but as he says we bring little attention to the fact that God has already done most of the work for us (like in farming he made the soil, the water, and the Sun) because we simply take it for granted—nonetheless we ought to remind ourselves of this facts. His definition of drunkenness is really interesting; he says that drunkenness is drinking beyond the necessity of thirst, and that gluttony is eating beyond the necessity of sustenance, as in doing it only for pleasure as this to live for the stomach; he also points out the obvious fact that drunkenness and gluttonous behavior badly impairs our rationale and degrades us to an animalistic level as a result of this slavery. I like how he points out that not forgiving others entails a a condemnation on ourselves when we pray the Our Father as we ask God to forgive those as we forgive others, but if we do not hold up our end, then neither does God. He correctly rebukes the notion that weakness is the reason sin, as he correctly points out that weakness cannot actually beget anything as it is a lack of something, and lack of something does not have any power. Although he does acknowledge that the poor man may steal something to satisfy his hunger, this says nothing about the rich man who steals much more to satisfy his greed. What he says about the spirit and the understanding ought to make Pentecostals rethink their style of worship if they were to actually ever pick up this book. He points out that Saint Paul says that praying with the understanding is much better than praying with the spirit (as praying with the understanding is fruitful, whereas praying with the spirit is not, though it is not bad in itself), yet the Pentecostals invert this. What he says about preparing for prayer is likewise very good, like just believing that God can in fact do things through both nature, and independent of nature; he likewise points out we have to go into praying with the intention to never sin again, and that we mist reconcile with our brothers before praying. What he says about keeping Sunday holy is likewise very good, like when he points out Jesus is the one who ultimately sets the standard, not the Jews, hence why medically attending to people on Sunday is morally ok as this is what Jesus did—the lawmaker who came to clarify what the law on this matter actually is. We only do on Sunday what is necessary, and regardless what we do on Sunday must be consecrated to God, such as wearing special vestments to glorify God (not for vainglorious purposes). What he says about stumbling blocks is great, and actually falls in line very well with the Catholic conception of morality in relation to circumstances, in that an inherently good act is not always good to do if doing it will actually cause a stumbling block for thy brother. When we sin ourselves, we can repent and do penance, but when we spread our sin to others, we can no longer do those things to fix the sin; this is why scandal is much worse than those sins which we restrict to ourselves. There is so much more I can say from this work, but really I just think that everybody ought to just pick it up for themselves to edify their souls even further.

[Signe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding sermons with Biblical references cited in the margins. Thank you for bringing this work into the English language!